Prediction of post-radiotherapy survival for bone metastases: a comparison of the 3-variable number of risk factors model with the new Katagiri scoring system

Predicting the survival of patients with painful tumours treated with palliative radiotherapy: a secondary analysis using the 3-variable number-of-risk-factors model

BACKGROUND

The 3-variable number-of-risk-factors (NRF) model is a prognostic tool for patients undergoing palliative radiotherapy (PRT). However, there is little research on the NRF model for patients with painful non-bone-metastasis tumours treated with PRT, and the efficacy of the NRF model in predicting survival is unclear to date. Therefore, we aimed to assess the prognostic accuracy of a 3-variable NRF model in patients undergoing PRT for bone and non- bone-metastasis tumours.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of studies on PRT for bone-metastasis (BM) and PRT for miscellaneous painful tumours (MPTs), including non-BM tumours. Patients were grouped in the NRF model and survival was compared between groups. Discrimination was evaluated using a time-independent C-index and a time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). A calibration curve was used to assess the agreement between predicted and observed survival.

RESULTS

We analysed 485 patients in the BM group and 302 patients in the MPT group. The median survival times in the BM group for groups I, II, and III were 35.1, 10.1, and 3.3 months, respectively (P < 0.001), while in the MPT group, they were 22.1, 9.5, and 4.6 months, respectively (P < 0.001). The C-index was 0.689 in the BM group and 0.625 in the MPT group. In the BM group, time-dependent AUROCs over 2 to 24 months ranged from 0.738 to 0.765, while in the MPT group, they ranged from 0.650 to 0.689, with both groups showing consistent accuracy over time. The calibration curve showed a reasonable agreement between the predicted and observed survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The NRF model predicted survival moderately well in both the BM and MPT groups.

Pain response in single-fraction 8-Gy radiotherapy for painful non-bone-metastasis tumors: a single-center retrospective study

The effectiveness of single-fraction 8-Gy radiotherapy for painful bone metastases has been verified in numerous randomized controlled trials. However, few reports have described the effectiveness of single-fraction 8-Gy radiotherapy in painful tumors other than bone metastases. We conducted a retrospective analysis to evaluate the pain response to single-fraction 8-Gy radiotherapy in painful non-bone-metastasis tumors. We included patients who had received single-fraction 8-Gy radiotherapy for such tumors between January 2017 and December 2022, excluding those with brain metastases, hematological tumors and those who received re-irradiation. Pain response assessment was based on the best responses documented in the medical records and conducted by two radiation oncologists. A total of 36 eligible patients were included in this study. The irradiation sites included primary lesions in eight patients, lymph node metastases in eight, muscle metastases in seven, pleural dissemination in four, skin/subcutaneous metastases in four and other sites in five. Pain response was assessed in 24 patients after radiotherapy. Pain response rate was 88% in evaluable patients; 21 of the 24 patients experienced response. The median assessment date for pain response was 37 days (range: 8-156 days) after radiotherapy. Re-irradiation was performed in four patients (11%). Single-fraction 8-Gy radiotherapy seemed to be a promising treatment option for painful non-bone-metastasis tumors and warrants further investigation.

A Systematic Review of Prognostic Factors in Patients with Cancer Receiving Palliative Radiotherapy: Evidence-Based Recommendations

(1) Background: Prognostication in patients with cancer receiving palliative radiotherapy remains a challenge. To improve the process, we aim to identify prognostic factors in this population from the literature and offer evidence-based recommendations on prognostication in patients undergoing palliative radiotherapy for non-curable or advanced cancers. (2) Methods: A systematic review was performed on the medical literature from 2005 to 2023 to extract papers on the prognosis of palliative radiotherapy patients with advanced cancer. The initial selection was performed by at least two authors to determine study relevance to the target area. Studies were then classified based on type and evidence quality to determine final recommendations. (3) Results: The literature search returned 57 papers to be evaluated. Clinical and biological prognostic factors were identified from these papers to improve clinical decision making or construct prognostic models. Twenty prognostic models were identified for clinical use. There is moderate evidence supporting (i) evidence-based factors (patient, clinical, disease, and lab) in guiding decision making around palliative radiation; (ii) that certain biological factors are of importance; (iii) prognostication models in patients with advanced cancer; and that (iv) SBRT or re-irradiation use can be guided by predictions of survival by prognostic scores or clinicians. Patients with more favorable prognoses are generally better suited to SBRT or re-irradiation, and the use of prognostic models can aid in this decision making. (4) Conclusions: This evaluation has identified several factors or tools to aid in prognosis and clinical decision making. Future studies should aim to further validate these tools and factors in a clinical setting, including the leveraging of electronic medical records for data availability. To increase our understanding of how causal factors interact with palliative radiotherapy, future studies should also examine and include prediction of response to radiation as an outcome.

Improving the Integration between Palliative Radiotherapy and Supportive Care: A Narrative Review

Palliative radiotherapy (PRT) is known to be effective in relieving cancer related symptoms. However, many studies and clinical practice show several barriers hindering its use and worsening the quality of patient support during PRT. Various solutions were proposed to overcome these barriers: training on PRT for supportive and palliative care specialists and training on palliative care for radiation oncologists, and introduction of pathways and organizational models specifically dedicated to PRT. Evidence on innovative organizational models and mutual training experiences is few and sparse. Therefore, the aim of this literature review is to present a quick summary of the information available on improving the PRT quality through training, new pathways, and innovative organizational models. The majority of studies on the integration of PRT with other palliative and supportive therapies present low levels of evidence being mostly retrospective analyses. However, it should be emphasized that all reports uniformly showed advantages coming from the integration of PRT with supportive therapies. To actively participate in the integration of PRT and palliative care, providing comprehensive support to the needs of patients with advanced cancer, radiation oncologists should not only plan PRT but also: (i) assess and manage symptoms and stress, (ii) rapidly refer patients to specialists in management of more complex symptoms, and (iii) participate in multidisciplinary palliative care teams. To this end, improved education in palliative care both in residency schools and during professional life through continuous medical education is clearly needed. In particular, effective training is needed for radiotherapy residents to enable them to provide patients with comprehensive palliative care. Therefore, formal teaching of adequate duration, interactive teaching methods, attendance in palliative care services, and education in advanced palliative care should be planned in post-graduated schools of radiotherapy.