Fractionated radiotherapy for metastatic bone pain: evidence-based medicine or...?

Single-session and multisession CyberKnife radiosurgery for spine metastases-University of Pittsburgh and Georgetown University experience

OBJECT

The authors compared the effectiveness of single-session (SS) and multisession (MS) stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for the treatment of spinal metastases.

METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective review of the clinical outcomes of 348 lesions in 228 patients treated with the CyberKnife radiosurgery at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute and Georgetown University Medical Center. One hundred ninety-five lesions were treated using an SS treatment regimen (mean 16.3 Gy), whereas 153 lesions were treated using an MS approach (mean 20.6 Gy in 3 fractions, 23.8 Gy in 4 fractions, and 24.5 Gy in 5 fractions). The primary end point was pain control. Secondary end points included neurological deficit improvement, toxicity, local tumor control, need for retreatment, and overall survival.

RESULTS

Pain control was significantly improved in the SS group (SSG) for all measured time points up to 1 year posttreatment (100% vs 88%, p = 0.003). Rates of toxicity and neurological deficit improvement were not statistically different. Local tumor control was significantly better in the MS group (MSG) up to 2 years posttreatment (96% vs 70%, p = 0.001). Similarly, the need for retreatment was significantly lower in the MSG (1% vs 13%, p < 0.001). One-year overall survival was significantly greater in the MSG than the SSG (63% vs 46%, p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Single-session and MS SRS regimens are both effective in the treatment of spinal metastases. While an SS approach provides greater early pain control and equivalent toxicity, an MS approach achieves greater tumor control and less need for retreatment in long-term survivors.

Did the pattern of practice in the prescription of palliative radiotherapy for the treatment of uncomplicated bone metastases change between 1999 and 2005 at the rapid response radiotherapy program?

AIMS

Since 1999, randomised clinical trials and meta-analyses have reported equal efficacy of pain relief from single- and multiple-fraction radiotherapy for bone metastases. A number of factors, including limited radiotherapy resources, waiting times, and patient convenience, suggest single fraction to be the treatment of choice for patients. However, international patterns of practice indicate that multiple fractions are still commonly used. This study examined whether dose-fractionation schemes used for the treatment of bone metastases at the Rapid Response Radiotherapy Program (RRRP) at the Odette Cancer Centre have changed since 1999.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of the prospective RRRP database and hospital records were conducted for all patients treated with palliative radiotherapy for uncomplicated bone metastases at the RRRP in 1999 (or baseline), 2001, 2004 and from 1 January to 31 July 2005. Data were collected on patient demographics and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

Of the 693 patients, 65 and 35% were prescribed single fraction (predominantly single 8 Gy) and multiple fractions (predominantly 20 Gy/five fractions), respectively. The administration of single treatments generally increased over time, from 51% in 1999 to 66% in 2005 (P=0.0001). On the basis of multiple logistic regression analyses, patients were more likely to be prescribed single-fraction radiotherapy if they had prostate cancer, had a poorer performance status, were treated to the limbs, hips, shoulders, pelvis, ribs, scapula, sternum, or clavicle (compared with the spine), were treated by a radiation oncologist who had been trained in earlier years, and who were treated after 1999.

CONCLUSIONS

Between 1999 and 2005, the use of single-fraction radiotherapy increased, corresponding to publications showing equal efficacy of pain relief between single and multiple fractions in the management of uncomplicated bone metastases. However, about a third of patients still received multiple fractions.

Review of patterns of practice and patients’ preferences in the treatment of bone metastases with palliative radiotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Since the 1980s, randomized clinical trials showed that single fraction radiotherapy (RT) provided equal pain relief as multiple fractions of RT in the treatment of bone metastases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using Medline, a literature search was conducted on patterns of practice among radiation oncologists and patients' preferences of dose fractionations for the treatment of bone metastases.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Fifteen studies on international patterns of practice published between 1966 and May 2006 were identified. Surveys of Canadian radiation oncologists indicated approximately 85% preferred multiple fractions, most often as 20 Gray in five fractions (20 Gy/5). Surveys in the United States indicated that 30 Gy/10 was most commonly used, and 90-100% of these oncologists preferred multiple over single fraction RT. Multiple fractions were most commonly used in the United Kingdom, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand, and India; however, more radiation oncologists in these countries would prescribe a single fraction than in North America. Three studies investigated patients' preferences of dose fractionations. In the Australian study, most patients favored single fraction RT as long as long-term outcomes were not compromised. Durability of pain relief was considered more important than short-term convenience factors. In the Singapore study, 85% of patients would choose extended courses of RT (24 Gy/6) compared to a single 8 Gy. In the Canadian study, most patients (76%) would choose a single 8 Gy over 20 Gy/5 of palliative RT due to greater convenience.

CONCLUSION

Despite strong evidence supporting the use of single fraction RT, current practices and preferences favor multiple fractions for the treatment of bone metastases. This has significant implications for the overall quality of life, RT department workload, costs to healthcare systems, and patient convenience.

Radiotherapy fractionation for the palliation of uncomplicated painful bone metastases - an evidence-based practice guideline

BACKGROUND

This practice guideline was developed to provide recommendations to clinicians in Ontario on the preferred standard radiotherapy fractionation schedule for the treatment of painful bone metastases.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed and published elsewhere. The Supportive Care Guidelines Group, a multidisciplinary guideline development panel, formulated clinical recommendations based on their interpretation of the evidence. In addition to evidence from clinical trials, the panel also considered patient convenience and ease of administration of palliative radiotherapy. External review of the draft report by Ontario practitioners was obtained through a mailed survey, and final approval was obtained from the Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis did not detect a significant difference in complete or overall pain relief between single treatment and multifraction palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases. Fifty-nine Ontario practitioners responded to the mailed survey (return rate 62%). Forty-two percent also returned written comments. Eighty-three percent of respondents agreed with the interpretation of the evidence and 75% agreed that the report should be approved as a practice guideline. Minor revisions were made based on feedback from the external reviewers and the Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee. The Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee approved the final practice guideline report.

CONCLUSION

For adult patients with single or multiple radiographically confirmed bone metastases of any histology corresponding to painful areas in previously non-irradiated areas without pathologic fractures or spinal cord/cauda equine compression, we conclude that: Where the treatment objective is pain relief, a single 8 Gy treatment, prescribed to the appropriate target volume, is recommended as the standard dose-fractionation schedule for the treatment of symptomatic and uncomplicated bone metastases. Several factors frequently considered in clinical practice when applying this evidence such as the effect of primary histology, anatomical site of treatment, risk of pathological fracture, soft tissue disease and cord compression, use of antiemetics, and the role of retreatment are discussed as qualifying statements.Our systematic review and meta-analysis provided high quality evidence for the key recommendation in this clinical practice guideline. Qualifying statements addressing factors that should be considered when applying this recommendation in clinical practice facilitate its clinical application. The rigorous development and approval process result in a final document that is strongly endorsed by practitioners as a practice guideline.

Quality assurance experience with the randomized neuropathic bone pain trial (Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group, 96.05)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 96.05 is a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing a single 8 Gy with 20 Gy in five fractions of radiotherapy (RT) for neuropathic pain due to bone metastases. This paper summarizes the quality assurance (QA) activities for the first 234 patients (accrual target 270).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Independent audits to assess compliance with eligibility/exclusion criteria and appropriateness of treatment of the index site were conducted after each cohort of approximately 45 consecutive patients. Reported serious adverse events (SAEs) in the form of cord/cauda equina compression or pathological fracture developing at the index site were investigated and presented in batches to the Independent Data Monitoring Committee. Finally, source data verification of the RT prescription page and treatment records was undertaken for each of the first 234 patients to assess compliance with the protocol.

RESULTS

Only one patient was found conclusively not to have genuine neuropathic pain, and there were no detected 'geographical misses' with RT fields. The overall rate of detected infringements for other eligibility criteria over five audits (225 patients) was 8% with a dramatic improvement after the first audit. There has at no stage been a statistically significant difference in SAEs by randomization arm. There was a 22% rate of RT protocol variations involving ten of the 14 contributing centres, although the rate of major dose violations (more than +/-10% from protocol dose) was only 6% with no statistically significant difference by randomization arm (P=0.44).

CONCLUSIONS

QA auditing is an essential but time-consuming component of RT trials, including those assessing palliative endpoints. Our experience confirms that all aspects should commence soon after study activation.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

A predictive model for survival in metastatic cancer patients attending an outpatient palliative radiotherapy clinic

PURPOSE

To develop a predictive model for survival from the time of presentation in an outpatient palliative radiotherapy clinic.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Sixteen factors were analyzed prospectively in 395 patients seen in a dedicated palliative radiotherapy clinic in a large tertiary cancer center using Cox's proportional hazards regression model.

RESULTS

Six prognostic factors had a statistically significant impact on survival, as follows: primary cancer site, site of metastases, Karnofsky performance score (KPS), and fatigue, appetite, and shortness of breath scores from the modified Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale. Risk group stratification was performed (1) by assigning weights to the prognostic factors based on their levels of significance, and (2) by the number of risk factors present. The weighting method provided a Survival Prediction Score (SPS), ranging from 0 to 32. The survival probability at 3, 6, and 12 months was 83%, 70%, and 51%, respectively, for patients with SPS <or=13 (n = 133); 67%, 41%, and 20% for patients with SPS 14-19 (n = 129); and 36%, 18%, and 4% for patients with SPS >or=20 (n = 133) (p < 0.0001). Corresponding survival probabilities based on number of risk factors were as follows: 85%, 72%, and 52% (<or=3 risk factors)(n = 98); 68%, 47%, and 24% (4 risk factors)(n = 117); and 46%, 24%, and 11% (>or=5 factors)(n = 180)(p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Clinical prognostic factors can be used to predict prognosis among patients attending a palliative radiotherapy clinic. If validated in an independent series of patients, the model can be used to guide clinical decisions, plan supportive services, and allocate resource use.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS AND MATERIALS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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