1
|
Guninski RS, Cuccia F, Alongi F, Andratschke N, Belka C, Bellut D, Dahele M, Josipovic M, Kroese TE, Mancosu P, Minniti G, Niyazi M, Ricardi U, Munck Af Rosenschold P, Sahgal A, Tsang Y, Verbakel WFAR, Guckenberger M. Efficacy and safety of SBRT for spine metastases: A systematic review and meta-analysis for preparation of an ESTRO practice guideline. Radiother Oncol 2024; 190:109969. [PMID: 37922993 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109969] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/22/2023] [Accepted: 10/18/2023] [Indexed: 11/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Advances in characterizing cancer biology and the growing availability of novel targeted agents and immune therapeutics have significantly changed the prognosis of many patients with metastatic disease. Palliative radiotherapy needs to adapt to these developments. In this study, we summarize the available evidence for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in the treatment of spinal metastases. MATERIALS AND METHODS A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using PRISMA methodology, including publications from January 2005 to September 2021, with the exception of the randomized phase III trial RTOG-0631 which was added in April 2023. Re-irradiation was excluded. For meta-analysis, a random-effects model was used to pool the data. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I2-test, assuming substantial and considerable as I2 > 50 % and I2 > 75 %, respectively. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS A total of 69 studies assessing the outcomes of 7236 metastases in 5736 patients were analyzed. SBRT for spine metastases showed high efficacy, with a pooled overall pain response rate of 83 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 68 %-94 %), pooled complete pain response of 36 % (95 % CI: 20 %-53 %), and 1-year local control rate of 94 % (95 % CI: 86 %-99 %), although with high levels of heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 93 %, I2 = 86 %, and 86 %, respectively). Furthermore, SBRT was safe, with a pooled vertebral fracture rate of 9 % (95 % CI: 4 %-16 %), pooled radiation induced myelopathy rate of 0 % (95 % CI 0-2 %), and pooled pain flare rate of 6 % (95 % CI: 3 %-17 %), although with mixed levels of heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 92 %, I2 = 0 %, and 95 %, respectively). Only 1.7 % of vertebral fractures required surgical stabilization. CONCLUSION Spine SBRT is characterized by a favorable efficacy and safety profile, providing durable results for pain control and disease control, which is particularly relevant for oligometastatic patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R S Guninski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
| | - F Cuccia
- ARNAS Civico Hospital, Radiation Oncology Unit, Palermo, Italy
| | - F Alongi
- Advanced Radiation Department, IRCCS Ospedale Sacro Cuore Don Calabria, Negrar-Verona, Italy. University of Brescia, Italy
| | - N Andratschke
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - C Belka
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany. German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner site Munich, Munich, Germany. Bavarian Cancer Research Center (BZKF), Munich, Germany
| | - D Bellut
- University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Department of Neurosurgery. Zurich, Switzerland
| | - M Dahele
- Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Radiation Oncology and Cancer Center Amsterdam, de Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M Josipovic
- Department of Oncology, Centre for Cancer and Organ Diseases, Copenhagen University Hospital - Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Blegdamsvej 3B, 2200 Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - T E Kroese
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - P Mancosu
- IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Medical Physics Unit, Radiation Oncology department, via Manzoni 56, I-20089 Rozzano, Milan, Italy
| | - G Minniti
- Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Anatomical PathologySapienza University of Rome, Rome; IRCCS Neuromed, Pozzilli, IS, Italy
| | - M Niyazi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - U Ricardi
- University of Turin, Department of Oncology, Turin, Italy
| | - P Munck Af Rosenschold
- Radiation Physics, Department of Hematology, Oncology and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden; Medical Radiation Physics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | - A Sahgal
- Odette Cancer Center of the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Toronto, Canada
| | - Y Tsang
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Radiation Medicine Program, Toronto, Canada
| | - W F A R Verbakel
- Amsterdam University Medical Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M Guckenberger
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Cuccia F, Pastorello E, Franzese C, Belgioia L, Bignardi M, Federico M, Figlia V, Giaj Levra N, Badellino S, Borghetti P, Marvaso G, Montesi G, Pontoriero A, Fazio I, Ferrera G, Alongi F, Scorsetti M. Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Spine Oligometastases: A Multicentre Retrospective Study From the Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology (AIRO). Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2023; 35:794-800. [PMID: 37714793 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2023.09.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/15/2023] [Revised: 07/26/2023] [Accepted: 09/04/2023] [Indexed: 09/17/2023]
Abstract
AIM To evaluate the efficacy of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for spine oligometastases. MATERIALS AND METHODS This was a multicentre retrospective study of a series of patients who received SBRT for spine oligometastases. The efficacy of SBRT was evaluated in terms of local control as the primary endpoint. Survival outcomes were also analysed to identify predictive factors for clinical outcomes. Toxicity was assessed according to CTCAE v4.0. RESULTS Between March 2018 and July 2022, 183 lesions in 177 patients were analysed. In most patients, SBRT was delivered to a single spine metastasis (82%) for a median total dose of 21 Gy (14-35 Gy) in three fractions (one to five fractions) and a median BED10 = 119 Gy (57.7-152 Gy). Local control rates were 90.3% at 1 year, 84.3% at 2 years and 84.3% at 3 years. Distant progression-free survival rates were 33.1%, 18.5% and 12.4% at 1, 2 and 3 years, with prostate histology (P = 0.023), oligorecurrent disease (P = 0.04) and BED10 > 100 Gy (P = 0.04) found to be predictive on univariate analysis. A further oligometastatic progression was observed in 33 patients (18.6%) treated with a second course of SBRT, reporting at univariate analysis improved overall survival rates (P = 0.01). Polymetastases-free survival rates were 57.8%, 43.4% and 32.4%; concurrent therapy was related to improved outcomes at multivariate analysis (P = 0.009). Overall survival rates were 91.8%, 79.6% and 65.9%, with prostate histology and non-cervical metastases related to better overall survival at multivariate analysis. Pain-flare after SBRT was recorded in 3.3%; five patients underwent surgical decompression after SBRT; there were no grade ≥3 adverse events. CONCLUSIONS In our experience of only oligometastatic patients, spine SBRT gave excellent results in terms of safety and efficacy. Prostate histology and oligorecurrent disease were predictive factors for improved clinical outcomes; also, patients who experienced a further oligoprogression after SBRT maintained a survival advantage compared with polymetastatic progression. No severe adverse events were reported.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- F Cuccia
- Radiotherapy Unit, ARNAS Civico Hospital, Palermo, Italy.
| | - E Pastorello
- Advanced Radiation Oncology Department, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Negrar di Valpolicella (VR), Italy
| | - C Franzese
- IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery Department, Milan, Italy
| | - L Belgioia
- Radiation Oncology Department, San Martino Teaching Hospital, Genova University (DISSAL), Genoa, Italy
| | - M Bignardi
- Radiation Oncology Center, Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy
| | - M Federico
- Radiation Therapy Unit, Clinica Macchiarella, Palermo, Italy
| | - V Figlia
- Radiotherapy Unit, ARNAS Civico Hospital, Palermo, Italy
| | - N Giaj Levra
- Advanced Radiation Oncology Department, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Negrar di Valpolicella (VR), Italy
| | - S Badellino
- Department of Oncology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | - P Borghetti
- Radiation Oncology Department, ASST Spedali Civili di Brescia, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy
| | - G Marvaso
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - G Montesi
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Santa Maria Della Misericordia Hospital, Rovigo, Italy
| | - A Pontoriero
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Department of Biomedical, Dental and Morphological and Functional Imaging Sciences, University of Messina, Messina, Italy
| | - I Fazio
- Radiation Therapy Unit, Clinica Macchiarella, Palermo, Italy
| | - G Ferrera
- Radiotherapy Unit, ARNAS Civico Hospital, Palermo, Italy
| | - F Alongi
- Advanced Radiation Oncology Department, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Negrar di Valpolicella (VR), Italy; University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy
| | - M Scorsetti
- IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery Department, Milan, Italy; Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Tanaka O, Taniguchi T, Nakaya S, Adachi K, Kiryu T, Makita C, Matsuo M. Stereotactic body radiation therapy to the spine: contouring the cauda equina instead of the spinal cord is more practical as the organ at risk. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2023; 28:407-415. [PMID: 37795406 PMCID: PMC10547411 DOI: 10.5603/rpor.a2023.0040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/02/2022] [Accepted: 06/05/2023] [Indexed: 10/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is recognized as a curative treatment for oligometastasis. The spinal cord becomes the cauda equina at the lumbar level, and the nerves are located dorsally. Recently, a consensus has been reached that the cauda equina should be contoured as an organ at risk (OAR). Here, we examined the separate contouring benefits for the spinal canal versus the cauda equina only as the OAR. Materials and methods A medical physicist designed a simulation plan for 10 patients with isolated lumbar metastasis. The OAR was set with three contours: the whole spinal canal, cauda equina only, and cauda equina with bilateral nerve roots. The prescribed dose for the planning target volume (PTV) was 30 Gy/3 fx. Results For the constrained QAR doses, D90 and D95 were statistically significant due to the different OAR contouring. The maximum dose (Dmax) was increased to the spinal canal when the cauda equina max was set to ≤ 20 Gy, but dose hotspots were observed in most cases in the medullary area. The Dmax and PTV coverage were negatively correlated for the cauda equina and the spinal canal if Dmax was set to ≤ 20 Gy for both. Conclusions A portion of the spinal fluid is also included when the spinal canal is set as the OAR. Thus, the PTV coverage rate will be poor if the tumor is in contact with the spinal canal. However, the PTV coverage rate increases if only the cauda equina is set as the OAR.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Osamu Tanaka
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Asahi University Hospital, Gifu City, Gifu, Japan
| | - Takuya Taniguchi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Asahi University Hospital, Gifu City, Gifu, Japan
| | - Shuto Nakaya
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Asahi University Hospital, Gifu City, Gifu, Japan
| | - Kousei Adachi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Asahi University Hospital, Gifu City, Gifu, Japan
| | - Takuji Kiryu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Asahi University Hospital, Gifu City, Gifu, Japan
| | - Chiyoko Makita
- Department of Radiology, Gifu University Hospital, Gifu City, Gifu, Japan
| | - Masayuki Matsuo
- Department of Radiology, Gifu University Hospital, Gifu City, Gifu, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Saha P, Raza M, Fragkakis A, Ajayi B, Bishop T, Bernard J, Miah A, Zaidi SH, Abdelhamid M, Minhas P, Lui DF. Case report: L5 tomita En bloc spondylectomy for oligometastatic liposarcoma with post adjuvant stereotactic ablative radiotherapy. Front Surg 2023; 10:1110580. [PMID: 36969765 PMCID: PMC10033756 DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2023.1110580] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/29/2022] [Accepted: 01/19/2023] [Indexed: 03/11/2023] Open
Abstract
IntroductionTomita En-bloc spondylectomy of L5 is one of the most challenging techniques in radical oncological spine surgery. A 42-year-old female was referred with lower back pain and L5 radiculopathy with a background of right shoulder liposarcoma excision. CT-PET confirmed a solitary L5 oligometastasis. MRI showed thecal sac indentation hence wasn't suitable for Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy (SABR) alone. The seeding nature of sarcoma prevents the indication of separation surgery hence excisional surgery is considered for radical curative treatment. This case report demonstrates dual-staged modified TES including the utilisation of novel techniques to allow for maximum radical oncological control in the era of SABR and lesser invasive surgery.MethodsFirst-stage: Carbonfibre pedicle screws planned from L2 to S2AI-Pelvis, aligned, to her patient-specific rods. Radiofrequency ablation of L5 pedicles prior to osteotomy was performed to prevent sarcoma cell seeding. Microscope-assisted thecal sac tumour separation and L5 nerve root dissection was performed. Novel surgical navigation of the ultrasonic bone-cutter assisted inferior L4 and superior S1 endplate osteotomies. Second-stage: Vascular-assisted retroperitoneal approach at L4–S1 was undertaken protecting the great vessels. Completion of osteotomies at L4 and S1 to En-bloc L5: (L4 inferior endplate, L4/5 disc, L5 body, L5/S1 disc and S1 superior endplate). Anterior reconstruction used an expandable PEEK cage obviating the need for a third posterior stage. Reinforced with a patient-specific carbon plate L4–S1 promontory.ResultsPatient rehabilitated well and was discharged after 42 days. Cyberknife of 30Gy in 5 fractions was delivered two months post-op. Despite left foot drop, she's walking independently 9 months post-op.ConclusionThese are challenging cases require a truly multi-disciplinary team approach. We share this technique for a dual stage TES and metal-free construct with post adjuvant SABR to achieve maximum local control in spinal oligometastatic disease. This case promotes our modified TES technique in the era of SABR and separation surgery in carefully selected cases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Priyanshu Saha
- School of Medicine, St George's, University of London, United Kingdom
- Department of Complex Neurosurgery, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom
- Correspondence: Priyanshu Saha
| | - Mohsen Raza
- Department of Complex Neurosurgery, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom
| | - Angelo Fragkakis
- Department of Complex Neurosurgery, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom
| | - Bisola Ajayi
- Department of Complex Neurosurgery, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom
| | - Timothy Bishop
- Department of Complex Neurosurgery, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom
| | - Jason Bernard
- Department of Complex Neurosurgery, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom
| | - Aisha Miah
- Department of Sarcoma, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom
| | - Shane H. Zaidi
- Department of Sarcoma, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom
| | - Mohamed Abdelhamid
- Department of Vascular Surgery, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom
| | - Pawan Minhas
- Department of Complex Neurosurgery, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom
| | - Darren F. Lui
- Department of Complex Neurosurgery, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Di Franco R, Pezzulla D, Arcidiacono F, Pontoriero A, Cellini F, Belgioia L, Borzillo V, Lillo S, Pastore F, Dominici L, Longo S, Cacciola A, Ciabattoni A, Zamagni A, Francolini G, Fontana A, Scipilliti E, Mazzola R, D'Angelo E, Ingargiola R, Muto P, Maranzano E. 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). CLINICAL & TRANSLATIONAL ONCOLOGY : OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE FEDERATION OF SPANISH ONCOLOGY SOCIETIES AND OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE OF MEXICO 2023; 25:408-416. [PMID: 36163444 DOI: 10.1007/s12094-022-02951-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/23/2022] [Accepted: 09/07/2022] [Indexed: 01/27/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rossella Di Franco
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori-IRCCS-Fondazione G. Pascale, Naples, Italy
| | - Donato Pezzulla
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Gemelli Molise Hospital-Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo A. Gemelli 1, 86100, Campobasso, Italy.
| | | | | | - Francesco Cellini
- Dipartimento di Diagnostica Per Immagini, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, UOC di Radioterapia Oncologica, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Rome, Italy
| | - Liliana Belgioia
- Department of Health Science (DISSAL), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy.,IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy
| | - Valentina Borzillo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori-IRCCS-Fondazione G. Pascale, Naples, Italy
| | - Sara Lillo
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Department of Biomedical, Dental Science and Morphological and Functional Images, University of Messina, Messina, Italy
| | | | - Luca Dominici
- Department of Radiotherapy, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center-IRCCS, Rozzano, Milan, Italy
| | - Silvia Longo
- Dipartimento di Diagnostica Per Immagini, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, UOC di Radioterapia Oncologica, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Rome, Italy
| | | | | | - Alice Zamagni
- Radiation Oncology, Department of Experimental Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine (DIMES), Alma Mater Studiorum-Bologna University, Bologna, Italy
| | - Giulio Francolini
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy
| | - Antonella Fontana
- UOC Radioterapia, Ospedale S.M. Goretti ASL di Latina, Latina, Italy
| | - Esmeralda Scipilliti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori-IRCCS-Fondazione G. Pascale, Naples, Italy
| | - Rosario Mazzola
- Radiation Oncology Department, IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Verona, Negrar, Italy
| | - Elisa D'Angelo
- UOC di Radioterapia Oncologica, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Modena, Modena, Italy
| | - Rossana Ingargiola
- Dipartimento di Radioterapia, Centro Nazionale di Adroterapia Oncologica, Pavia, Italy
| | - Paolo Muto
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori-IRCCS-Fondazione G. Pascale, Naples, Italy
| | - Ernesto Maranzano
- University of Perugia-Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, Radiotherapy Oncology Centre-"S. Maria" Hospital, Terni, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Pontoriero A, Lillo S, Caravatta L, Bellafiore F, Longo S, Lattanzi E, Parisi S, Fiorica F, Massaccesi M. 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). Strahlenther Onkol 2021; 197:369-384. [PMID: 33635395 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-021-01748-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/20/2020] [Accepted: 01/22/2021] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Sara Lillo
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Department of Biomedical, Dental Science and Morphological and Functional Images, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
| | - Luciana Caravatta
- Radiation Oncology Unit, "SS Annunziata" Hospital, "G. D'Annunzio" University, Chieti, Italy
| | | | - Silvia Longo
- Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Roma, Italy
| | | | - Silvana Parisi
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Department of Biomedical, Dental Science and Morphological and Functional Images, University of Messina, Messina, Italy
| | - Francesco Fiorica
- Radiotherapy and Nuclear Medicine Department, AULSS 9 Scaligera, Verona, Italy
| | - Mariangela Massaccesi
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Radiation Oncology and Hematology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Roma, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Metastasis-directed therapy for oligometastasis and beyond. Br J Cancer 2020; 124:136-141. [PMID: 33204024 PMCID: PMC7782796 DOI: 10.1038/s41416-020-01128-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/28/2020] [Revised: 08/19/2020] [Accepted: 09/22/2020] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Metastasis-directed therapy (MDT)-local therapy that is intended to eradicate specific metastatic lesions-has hitherto been used with varying degrees of clinical efficacy and acceptance as a meaningful therapy for metastatic disease. Over the past 25 years, however, the momentum for using MDT to manage patients with metastatic solid tumours has increased, driven by several factors. Among these factors is the recognition that patients with limited metastatic burden could potentially derive survival benefits from MDT. Furthermore, although current systemic therapies are increasingly effective, they are infrequently curative. In addition, technological advances have broadened the spectrum of metastatic lesions that can be treated with ablative intent. Here we aim to briefly review the status of evidence for the clinical benefit of MDT based on current data mainly from trials in patients with oligometastatic disease, discuss the myriad of clinical states that might fall under and beyond the definition of oligometastasis, review technological advances in MDT and their applications beyond oligometastasis, and discuss the need for the continued co-evolution of MDT and systemic therapy as we seek to understand which patients with metastatic cancer can achieve durable remission and how to optimally manage those who cannot.
Collapse
|
8
|
Rothrock RJ, Li Y, Lis E, Lobaugh S, Zhang Z, McCann P, Santos PMG, Yang TJ, Laufer I, Bilsky MH, Schmitt A, Yamada Y, Higginson DS. Hypofractionated spinal stereotactic body radiation therapy for high-grade epidural disease. J Neurosurg Spine 2020; 33:680-687. [PMID: 32707555 DOI: 10.3171/2020.4.spine20118] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/14/2020] [Accepted: 04/22/2020] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To characterize the clinical outcomes when stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) alone is used to treat high-grade epidural disease without prior surgical decompression, the authors conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients treated at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center between 2014 and 2018. The authors report locoregional failure (LRF) for a cohort of 31 cases treated with hypofractionated SBRT alone for grade 2 epidural spinal cord compression (ESCC) with radioresistant primary cancer histology. METHODS High-grade epidural disease was defined as grade 2 ESCC, which is notable for radiographic deformation of the spinal cord by metastatic disease. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and cumulative incidence functions were generated to examine the survival and incidence experiences of the sample level with respect to overall survival, LRF, and subsequent requirement of vertebral same-level surgery (SLS) due to tumor progression or fracture. Associations with dosimetric analysis were also examined. RESULTS Twenty-nine patients undergoing 31 episodes of hypofractionated SBRT alone for grade 2 ESCC between 2014 and 2018 were identified. The 1-year and 2-year cumulative incidences of LRF were 10.4% (95% CI 0-21.9) and 22.0% (95% CI 5.5-38.4), respectively. The median survival was 9.81 months (95% CI 8.12-18.54). The 1-year cumulative incidence of SLS was 6.8% (95% CI 0-16.0) and the 2-year incidence of SLS was 14.5% (95% CI 0.6-28.4). All patients who progressed to requiring surgery had index lesions at the thoracic apex (T5-7). CONCLUSIONS In carefully selected patients, treatment of grade 2 ESCC disease with hypofractionated SBRT alone offers a 1-year cumulative incidence of LRF similar to that in low-grade ESCC and postseparation surgery adjuvant hypofractionated SBRT. Use of SBRT alone has a favorable safety profile and a low cumulative incidence of progressive disease requiring open surgical intervention (14.5%).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | - Patrick McCann
- 5Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Singh R, Lehrer EJ, Dahshan B, Palmer JD, Sahgal A, Gerszten PC, Zaorsky NG, Trifiletti DM. Single fraction radiosurgery, fractionated radiosurgery, and conventional radiotherapy for spinal oligometastasis (SAFFRON): A systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiother Oncol 2020; 146:76-89. [PMID: 32114269 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.01.030] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/02/2019] [Revised: 01/27/2020] [Accepted: 01/31/2020] [Indexed: 01/09/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE To perform a systematic review/meta-analysis of outcomes for patients with spinal metastases treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) (either single-fraction (SF-SRS) or multiple-fraction (MF-SRS)) or conventional radiotherapy (RT). MATERIALS AND METHODS Thirty-seven studies were identified. Primary outcomes were 1-year local control (LC) and acute/late grade 3-5 toxicities (including vertebral compression fractures (VCF)). Weighted random effects meta-analyses using the DerSimonian and Laird methods and meta-regressions were conducted to characterize and compare effect sizes. Mixed effects regression models were used in dose analyses. RESULTS A total of 3237 patients with 4911 lesions were included; 43.8%, 19.7%, and 36.5% of lesions received SF-SRS, MF-SRS, or RT, respectively. SF-SRS resulted in improved 1-year LC (92.9% (95% CI: 86.4-97.4%); p = 0.007) compared to RT (81.0% (95% CI: 69.2-90.5%)) with no difference between MF-SRS (82.1%; p = 0.86) and RT. On subgroup analysis of de novo metastases, superior 1-year LC following SF-SRS (95.5% (95% CI: 87.4-99.6%)) was maintained compared to RT (83.6% (95% CI: 70.4-93.5%); p = 0.007). A 4.7% increase in LC was noted for each 10 Gy10 increase in biologically effective dose (BED10, assuming an alpha/beta = 10) with SRS (p < 0.001). No difference in toxicities were found between SF-SRS (0.4%), MF-SRS (0.2%), or RT (0%). Higher VCF rates were noted following SF-SRS (19.5%) vs. MF-SRS (9.6%; p = 0.039)) with no correlation between dose and VCF rates. CONCLUSION SF-SRS resulted in superior LC with a roughly 5% LC benefit for every 10 Gy10 increase in BED10 with higher VCF rates compared to MF-SRS. If LC is the goal of treatment, then SRS may be a preferred treatment modality. However, these results are hypothesis-generating, and prospective randomized clinical trials are indicated to definitively address the question of whether SRS results in improved LC compared to RT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Raj Singh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, Richmond, USA
| | - Eric J Lehrer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, USA
| | - Basem Dahshan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown, USA
| | - Joshua D Palmer
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Neurosurgery, The James Cancer Hospital at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, USA
| | - Arjun Sahgal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Hospital, Toronto, Canada
| | - Peter C Gerszten
- Departments of Neurosurgery and Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, USA
| | - Nicholas G Zaorsky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Penn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Loi M, Nuyttens JJ, Desideri I, Greto D, Livi L. Single-Fraction Radiotherapy (SFRT) For Bone Metastases: Patient Selection And Perspectives. Cancer Manag Res 2019; 11:9397-9408. [PMID: 31807069 PMCID: PMC6842277 DOI: 10.2147/cmar.s186630] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/16/2019] [Accepted: 10/22/2019] [Indexed: 01/02/2023] Open
Abstract
Bone metastases are a frequent and important source of morbidity in cancer patients. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is an established treatment option for local control and pain relief of bone metastases, and it is increasingly used as upfront treatment, postoperative consolidation or salvage treatment after prior RT. However, heterogeneity of dose schedules described in literature represents a severe limitation in the definition of the role of SBRT as a standard of care. No consensus is available on the use of single versus multiple fraction SBRT for bone metastases. Advantages of single-fraction SBRT include shorter overall duration of treatment, absence of inter-fraction uncertainty, improved compliance, theoretical increased efficacy, and lower costs. However, caution has been advised due to reports of severe late toxicities, in particular, vertebral collapse fracture (VCF). The aim of this paper is to review dose fractionation and indications for the management of bone metastases using SBRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mauro Loi
- Radiotherapy Department, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Joost J Nuyttens
- Radiotherapy Department, Erasmus MC Cancer Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Isacco Desideri
- Radiotherapy Department, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Daniela Greto
- Radiotherapy Department, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Lorenzo Livi
- Radiotherapy Department, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Gong Y, Xu L, Zhuang H, Jiang L, Wei F, Liu Z, Li Y, Yu M, Ni K, Liu X. Efficacy and safety of different fractions in stereotactic body radiotherapy for spinal metastases: A systematic review. Cancer Med 2019; 8:6176-6184. [PMID: 31489788 PMCID: PMC6797563 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.2546] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/28/2019] [Revised: 07/28/2019] [Accepted: 08/23/2019] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In the treatment of spinal metastases, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) delivers precise, high-dose radiation to the target region while sparing the spinal cord. A range of doses and fractions had been reported; however, the optimal prescribed scheme remains unclear. METHODS Two reviewers performed independent literature searches of the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Database, and Web of Science databases. Articles were divided into one to five fractions groups. The Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) was used to assess the quality of studies. Local control (LC) and overall survival (OS) were presented for the included studies and a pooled value was calculated by the weighted average. RESULTS The 38 included studies comprised 3,754 patients with 4,731 lesions. The average 1-year LCs for the one to five fractions were 92.7%, 84.6%, 86.8%, 82.6%, and 80.6%, respectively. The average 1-year OS for the one to five fractions were 53.0%, 70.4%, 60.1%, 48%, and 80%, respectively. The 24 Gy/single fraction scheme had a higher 1-year LC (98.1%) than those of 24 Gy/two fractions (85.4%), 27 Gy/three fractions (84.9%), and 24 Gy/three fractions (89.0%). The incidence of vertebral compression fracture was 10.3%, with 10.7% in the single-fraction group and 10.1% in the multi-fraction group. The incidence of radiation-induced myelopathy was 0.19%; three and two patients were treated with single-fraction and multi-fraction SBRT, respectively. The incidence of radiculopathy was 0.30% and all but one patient were treated with multi-fraction SBRT. CONCLUSIONS SBRT provided satisfactory efficacy and acceptable safety for spinal metastases. Single-fraction SBRT demonstrated a higher local control rate than those of the other factions, especially the 24 Gy dose. The risk of vertebral compression fracture (VCF) was slightly higher in single-fraction SBRT and more patients developed radiculopathy after multi-fraction SBRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yining Gong
- Department of Orthopedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Lingyi Xu
- Eight-Year-Program, Grade 2015, Health Science Center, Peking University, Beijing, China
| | - Hongqing Zhuang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Liang Jiang
- Department of Orthopedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Feng Wei
- Department of Orthopedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Zhongjun Liu
- Department of Orthopedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Yan Li
- Department of Orthopedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Miao Yu
- Department of Orthopedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Kaiwen Ni
- Research Center of Clinical Epidemiology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Xiaoguang Liu
- Department of Orthopedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China
| |
Collapse
|