Stereotactic body radiotherapy versus conventional radiotherapy for painful bone metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Palliative stereotactic body radiotherapy for spinal and non-spinal bone metastases: combining tradition and innovation

Bone metastases can cause pain, fractures, radiculopathy, and metastatic epidural spinal cord compression, all of which substantially impair patients' quality of life. Conventional external beam radiotherapy (cEBRT) has been the standard treatment for symptomatic bone metastases. While the effectiveness and safety of cEBRT are well established, it has certain limitations, including a short duration of pain relief, limited long-term tumor control, and suboptimal efficacy against radioresistant tumors. Over the past decade, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) has been explored as a palliative treatment for bone metastases. SBRT enables the delivery of high doses of radiation to bone lesions by maximizing dose conformality. This treatment characteristic yields several clinical advantages, including considerable pain relief, durable tumor control, and efficacy against radioresistant tumors. SBRT has the potential to overcome the limitations of cEBRT and represents a promising approach that could revolutionize the treatment of bone metastases. This review addresses three clinical scenarios: painful spinal metastases, painful non-spinal bone metastases, and metastatic epidural spinal cord compression. For each scenario, we summarized the evidence for cEBRT and SBRT, highlighting the utility and potential of SBRT as an emerging treatment option.

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).

Radiotherapy and surgery: can this combination be further optimized for patients with metastatic spine disease?

This narrative review provides a comprehensive overview of the current status, recent advancements, and future directions in the management of metastatic spine disease using both radiotherapy and surgery. Emphasis has been put on the integrated use of radiotherapy and surgery, incorporating recent developments such as separation surgery, active dose sparing of the surgical field, and the implementation of carbon fiber-reinforced polymer implants. Future studies should explore the effects of minimizing the time between radiotherapy and surgery and investigate the potential of vertebral re-ossification after radiotherapy to obviate the need for stabilization surgery. Concerted efforts should be directed toward fostering multidisciplinary collaboration among radiation oncologists, spine surgeons, and medical oncologists.

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.

Stereotactic radiotherapy for patients with bone metastases: a selected group with low rate of radiation treatment during the last month of life?

BACKGROUND

Complex high-precision radiotherapy, such as stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), should only be offered to patients with sufficiently long survival. In the context of bone metastases radiotherapy, low rates of treatment close to the end of life, e.g. last 30 days (RT30), may serve as a quality of care indicator. While traditional, pain-relieving short-course regimens have been studied comprehensively, real-world SBRT results are still limited.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis (2010-2023, n = 1117 episodes) of patients with bone metastases treated with traditional single-fraction (8 Gy × 1) or multi-fraction regimens (often 4 Gy × 5 or 3 Gy × 10) compared to stereotactic single-fraction (12-16 Gy × 1) or multi-fraction regimens.

RESULTS

Except for gender, almost all baseline variables were uneven distributed. Failure to complete fractionated radiotherapy was uncommon in the stereotactic (4%) and non-stereotactic group (3%), p = 1.0. With regard to RT30, relevant differences emerged (19% for 8-Gy single-fraction versus 0% for stereotactic single-fraction, p = 0.01). The corresponding figures were 11% for multi-fraction non-stereotactic and 2% for multi-fraction stereotactic, p = 0.08. Median overall survival was shortest after 8-Gy single-fraction irradiation (4.2 months) and longest after stereotactic multi-fraction treatment (13.9 months). Neither stereotactic radiotherapy nor multi-fraction treatment improved survival in multivariate Cox regression analysis. Factors significantly associated with longer survival included better performance status, lower LabBM score (5 standard blood test results), stable disease outside of irradiated area(s), metachronous distant metastases, longer time interval from metastatic disease to bone irradiation, and outpatient status.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of SBRT for selected patients has resulted in low rates of non-completion and RT30. Optimal selection criteria remain to be determined, but in current clinical practice we exclude patients with poor performance status, unfavorable blood test results (high LabBM score) and progressive disease sites not amenable to SBRT. Established, guideline-endorsed short-course regimens, especially 8-Gy single-fraction treatment, continue to represent an important palliative approach.

Multi-institutional prospective observational study of radiotherapy for metastatic bone tumor

Purpose of this study is to evaluate patient characteristics, treatments and outcomes in bone metastasis radiotherapy practice. Patients for whom radiotherapy for bone metastasis was planned at 26 institutions in Japan between December 2020 and March 2021 were consecutively registered in this prospective, observational study. Study measures included patient characteristics, pain relief, skeletal-related events (SREs), overall survival and incidence of radiation-related adverse events. Pain was evaluated using a numerical rating scale (NRS) from 0 to 10. Irradiated dose was analyzed by the biologically effective dose (BED) assuming α/β = 10. Overall, 232 patients were registered; 224 patients and 302 lesions were fully analyzed. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status was 0/1/2/3/4 in 23%/38%/22%/13%/4%; 59% of patients had spinal metastases and 84% had painful lesions (NRS ≥ 2). BED was <20 Gy (in 27%), 20-30 Gy (24%), 30-40 Gy (36%) and ≥ 40 Gy (13%); 9% of patients were treated by stereotactic body radiotherapy. Grade 3 adverse events occurred in 4% and no grade 4-5 toxicity was reported. Pain relief was achieved in 52% at 2 months. BED is not related to pain relief. The cumulative incidence of SREs was 6.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.1-9.9) at 6 months; no factors were significantly associated with SREs. With spinal lesions, 18% of patients were not ambulatory at baseline and 50% of evaluable patients in this group could walk at 2 months. The 6-month overall survival rate was 70.2% (95% CI 64.2-76.9%). In conclusion, we report real-world details of radiotherapy in bone metastasis.

Development of a core outcome set of clinical research on the integration of traditional Chinese and Western medicine for spinal metastases:

BACKGROUND

In recent years, the incidence of spinal metastasis (SM) has been increasing steadily. In response to this serious public health problem, researchers have made progress by using the integration of traditional Chinese and Western medicine. However, considerable heterogeneity in the definition and measurement of outcomes across clinical research studies, along with the lack of uniform measurement standards for study data, makes it difficult for researchers to compare different treatments. Therefore, it is crucial to accurately evaluate clinical research on the integration of traditional Chinese and Western medicine for SM.

METHODS

This study protocol outlines a comprehensive research programme based on the Core Outcome Set Standards Protocol Items. The study consists of four phases: a literature review, semistructured interviews, a two-round modified Delphi survey, a consensus meeting. Phase 1 involves a comprehensive literature review to extract outcomes used in current clinical studies of integrated traditional Chinese and Western medicine or Western medicine for the treatment of SM. A semistructured interview format will be used to survey patients and caregivers in phase 2 to collect suggestions from the patient perspective. Phase 3 involves a two-round modified Delphi survey to complete a prioritisation evaluation of outcomes to generate a candidate list for core outcome set (COS). Finally, phase 4 involves a face-to-face consensus meeting to review and establish the COS.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Conducted in response to the current dilemma of SM, the study was endorsed by the Spine Oncology Group of the Orthopaedic Surgeons Branch of the Chinese Physicians' Association. It will be developed and reported through a rigorous process, with the results of the study to be published in a peer-reviewed journal.Registration: COMET Registry: COMET 2938; https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2938.

Comparative Analysis of Stereotactic Radiation Therapy and Conventional Radiation Therapy in Cancer Pain Control: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

AIMS

Approximately 55% of patients diagnosed with primary or metastatic cancer endure pain directly attributable to the disease. Consequently, it becomes imperative to address pain management through a comparative analysis of stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) and conventional radiation therapy (CRT), especially in light of the less efficacious improvement achieved solely through pharmacological interventions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic exploration was undertaken on PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Elsevier's ScienceDirect databases to identify studies that compare Stereotactic Radiotherapy to Conventional radiation therapy for pain management in individuals with metastatic bone cancer. The analyses were executed utilizing the random-effects model.

RESULTS

A cohort of 1152 participants with metastatic bone cancer was analyzed, demonstrating significantly higher complete pain relief in the Stereotactic Radiotherapy group during both early and late follow-up (RR: 1.61; 95% CI: 1.17, 2.23, p-value: 0.004; I2: 0%). Stereotactic Radiotherapy also showed a non-significant increase in the incidence of partial pain relief (RR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.85, 1.34, p-value: 0.56; I2: 18%). Furthermore, Stereotactic Radiotherapy was associated with a significantly reduced risk of stationary pain throughout follow-up (RR: 0.61; 95%CI: 0.48, 0.76, p-value: <0.0001; I2: 0. The incidence of progressive pain was non-significantly reduced with Stereotactic Radiotherapy during both early and late follow-up (RR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.50, 1.17, p-value: 0.22; I2: 0%). Secondary outcomes exhibited a non-significant trend favoring Stereotactic Radiotherapy for dysphagia, esophagitis, pain, and radiodermatitis, while a non-significant increase was observed for nausea, fatigue, and vertebral compression fracture.

CONCLUSION

In summary, stereotactic radiation therapy (SRT) has improved in achieving complete pain relief while exhibiting a decreased probability of delivering stationary pain compared to conventional radiation therapy (CRT). Nevertheless, it is crucial in future research to address a noteworthy limitation, specifically, the risk of vertebral compression fracture.

Palliative radiotherapy for painful non-bone lesions in patients with advanced cancer: a single center retrospective study

PURPOSE

This retrospective study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of palliative radiotherapy for painful non-bone lesions in patients with advanced cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We enrolled patients with painful non-bone lesions who underwent conventional palliative radiotherapy between September 2018 and September 2022. The treatment targets included primary tumor lesions, lymph node metastases, non-bone hematogenous metastases, and other lesions. The primary endpoint was the overall pain response rate in evaluable patients, determined based on the International Consensus Pain Response Endpoint criteria. The secondary endpoints included overall survival, pain recurrence, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Of the 420 screened patients, 142 received palliative radiotherapy for painful non-bone lesions, and 112 were evaluable. A pain response was achieved in 67 patients (60%) of the 112 evaluable patients within a median of 1.2 months. Among these patients, 25 exhibited complete response, 42 partial response, 18 indeterminate response, and 27 pain progression. The median survival time was 5.5 months, recorded at a median follow-up of 6.0 months, during which 67 patients died. Multivariate analysis identified poor performance status scores of 2-4, opioid use, and re-irradiation as independent factors associated with a reduced likelihood of achieving a pain response. Pain recurrence occurred in 18 patients over a median of 4.1 months. Seventeen patients had grade 1-2 adverse events, while none experienced grade 3 or higher toxicity.

CONCLUSION

Palliative radiotherapy can potentially be a safe and well-tolerated modality for managing painful non-bone lesions, with a low rate of adverse events.

An Update on the Management of Bone Metastases

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Increasing life expectancy among patients with advanced cancer has placed a greater emphasis on optimizing pain control and quality of life. Concurrently, significant advancements in radiotherapy for bone metastases have permitted for dose escalation strategies such as stereotactic radiotherapy. This review aims to provide updated information on the management of bone metastases in light of these developments.

RECENT FINDINGS

We reviewed recent studies regarding the role and details of external beam radiotherapy for bone metastases, with emphasis on differences by treatment site as well as intention (palliative versus ablative for oligometastases). Conventional palliative radiotherapy remains a mainstay of management. While stereotactic radiotherapy may augment durability of pain relief and even survival time, there are significant questions remaining regarding optimal dosing and patient selection. Radiotherapy for bone metastases continues to evolve, particularly with increasing use of stereotactic radiotherapy. Future studies are needed to clarify optimal dose, fractionation, modality, and patient selection criteria among different radiotherapy approaches.

Practice and principles of stereotactic body radiation therapy for spine and non-spine bone metastases

Radiotherapy is the dominant treatment modality for painful spine and non-spine bone metastases (NSBM). Historically, this was achieved with conventional low dose external beam radiotherapy, however, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is increasingly applied for these indications. Meta-analyses and randomized clinical trials have demonstrated improved pain response and more durable tumor control with SBRT for spine metastases. However, in the setting of NSBM, there is limited evidence supporting global adoption and large scale randomized clinical trials are in need. SBRT is technically demanding requiring careful consideration of organ at risk tolerance, and strict adherence to technical requirements including immobilization, simulation, contouring and image-guidance procedures. Additional considerations include follow up practices after SBRT, with appropriate imaging playing a critical role in response assessment. Finally, there is renewed research into promising new technologies that may further refine the use of SBRT in both spinal and NSBM in the years to come.

Stereotactic Body and Conventional Radiotherapy for Painful Bone Metastases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

Conventional external beam radiotherapy (cEBRT) and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) are commonly used treatment options for relieving metastatic bone pain. The effectiveness of SBRT compared with cEBRT in pain relief has been a subject of debate, and conflicting results have been reported.

Objective

To compare the effectiveness associated with SBRT vs cEBRT for relieving metastatic bone pain.

Data Sources

A structured search was performed in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases on June 5, 2023. Additionally, results were added from a new randomized clinical trial (RCT) and additional unpublished data from an already published RCT.

Study Selection

Comparative studies reporting pain response after SBRT vs cEBRT in patients with painful bone metastases.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Two independent reviewers extracted data from eligible studies. Data were extracted for the intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) populations. The study is reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Overall and complete pain response at 1, 3, and 6 months after radiotherapy, according to the study's definition. Relative risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs were calculated for each study. A random-effects model using a restricted maximum likelihood estimator was applied for meta-analysis.

Results

There were 18 studies with 1685 patients included in the systematic review and 8 RCTs with 1090 patients were included in the meta-analysis. In 7 RCTs, overall pain response was defined according to the International Consensus on Palliative Radiotherapy Endpoints in clinical trials (ICPRE). The complete pain response was reported in 6 RCTs, all defined according to the ICPRE. The ITT meta-analyses showed that the overall pain response rates did not differ between cEBRT and SBRT at 1 (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.99-1.30), 3 (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.96-1.47), or 6 (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.96-1.54) months. However, SBRT was associated with a higher complete pain response at 1 (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.02-2.01), 3 (RR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.16-2.78), and 6 (RR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.24-4.91) months after radiotherapy. The PP meta-analyses showed comparable results.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, patients with painful bone metastases experienced similar overall pain response after SBRT compared with cEBRT. More patients had complete pain alleviation after SBRT, suggesting that selected subgroups will benefit from SBRT.

ESTRO clinical practice guideline: Stereotactic body radiotherapy for spine metastases

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Recent progress in diagnostics and treatment of metastatic cancer patients have improved survival substantially. These developments also affect local therapies, with treatment aims shifting from short-term palliation to long-term symptom or disease control. There is consequently a need to better define the value of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for the treatment of spinal metastases.

METHODS

This ESTRO clinical practice guideline is based on a systematic literature review conducted according to PRISMA standards, which formed the basis for answering four key questions about the indication and practice of SBRT for spine metastases.

RESULTS

The analysis of the key questions based on current evidence yielded 22 recommendations and 5 statements with varying levels of endorsement, all achieving a consensus among experts of at least 75%. In the majority, the level of evidence supporting the recommendations and statements was moderate or expert opinion, only, indicating that spine SBRT is still an evolving field of clinical research. Recommendations were established concerning the selection of appropriate patients with painful spine metastases and oligometastatic disease. Recommendations about the practice of spinal SBRT covered technical planning aspects including dose and fractionation, patient positioning, immobilization and image-guided SBRT delivery. Finally, recommendations were developed regarding quality assurance protocols, including description of potential SBRT-related toxicity and risk mitigation strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

This ESTRO clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations and statements regarding the selection of patients with spinal metastases for SBRT and its safe implementation and practice. Enrollment of patients into well-designed prospective clinical trials addressing clinically relevant questions is considered important.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy versus conventional external beam radiotherapy for spinal metastases: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to compare SBRT and cEBRT for treating spinal metastases through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched up to 6 May 2023 for RCTs comparing SBRT and cEBRT for spinal metastases. Overall and complete pain response, local progression, overall survival, quality of life and adverse events were extracted. Data were pooled using random-effects models. Results were reported as risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes, and hazard ratios (HRs) for time-to-event outcomes, along with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 statistic.

RESULTS

Three RCTs were identified involving 642 patients. No differences were seen in overall pain response comparing SBRT and cEBRT (RR at 3 months: 1.12, 95% CI, 0.74-1.70, p = 0.59; RR at 6 months: 1.29, 95% CI, 0.97-1.72, p = 0.08). Only two of three studies presented complete pain response data. SBRT demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in complete pain response compared to cEBRT (RR at 3 months: 2.52; 95% CI, 1.58-4.01; P < 0.0001; RR at 6 months: 2.48; 95% CI, 1.23-4.99; P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in local progression and overall survival. Adverse events were similar, except for any grade radiation dermatitis, which was significantly lower in SBRT arm (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.03-0.96, P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

SBRT is a safe treatment option for spine metastases. It may provide better complete pain response compared to cEBRT. Additional trials are needed to determine the potential benefits of SBRT in specific patient subsets.

Key changes in the future clinical application of ultra-high dose rate radiotherapy

Ultra-high dose rate radiotherapy (FLASH-RT) is an external beam radiotherapy strategy that uses an extremely high dose rate (≥40 Gy/s). Compared with conventional dose rate radiotherapy (≤0.1 Gy/s), the main advantage of FLASH-RT is that it can reduce damage of organs at risk surrounding the cancer and retain the anti-tumor effect. An important feature of FLASH-RT is that an extremely high dose rate leads to an extremely short treatment time; therefore, in clinical applications, the steps of radiotherapy may need to be adjusted. In this review, we discuss the selection of indications, simulations, target delineation, selection of radiotherapy technologies, and treatment plan evaluation for FLASH-RT to provide a theoretical basis for future research.

Early death after palliative radiation treatment: 30-, 35- and 40-day mortality data and statistically robust predictors

BACKGROUND

This study analyzed mortality after radiotherapy for bone metastases (287 courses). Endpoints such as treatment in the last month of life and death within 30, 35 and 40 days from start of radiotherapy were evaluated.

METHODS

Different baseline parameters including but not limited to blood test results and patterns of metastases were assessed for association with early death. After univariate analyses, multi-nominal logistic regression was employed.

RESULTS

Of 287 treatment courses, 42 (15%) took place in the last month of life. Mortality from start of radiotherapy was 13% (30-day), 15% (35-day) and 18% (40-day), respectively. We identified three significant predictors of 30-day mortality (performance status (≤ 50, 60-70, 80-100), weight loss of at least 10% within 6 months (yes/no), pleural effusion (present/absent)) and employed these to construct a predictive model with 5 strata and mortality rates of 0-75%. All predictors of 30-day mortality were also associated with both, 35- and 40-day mortality.

CONCLUSION

Early death was not limited to the first 30 days after start of radiotherapy. For different cut-off points, similar predictive factors emerged. A model based on three robust predictors was developed.

Percent of remaining life on palliative radiation treatment: solely a function of fractionation?

Background

This study analyzed the percent of remaining life (PRL) on treatment in patients irradiated for bone metastases. Bone metastases were treated together with other target volumes, if indicated, e.g. a 10-fraction treatment course that included brain and bone metastases. PRL was determined by calculating the time between start and finish of palliative radiotherapy (minimum 1 day in case of a single-fraction regimen) and dividing it by overall survival in days from start of radiotherapy.

Materials and methods

Different baseline parameters were assessed for association with dichotomized PRL (< 5% vs. ≥ 5%). The retrospective study included 219 patients (287 courses of palliative radiotherapy). After univariate analyses, multi-nominal logistic regression was employed.

Results

PRL on treatment ranged from 1-23%. Single-fraction radiotherapy resulted in < 5% PRL on treatment in all cases. All courses with 10 fractions resulted in at least 5% PRL on treatment. Significant associations were found between various baseline parameters and PRL category. With fractionation included in the regression model, 3 parameters retained significant p-values: Karnofsky performance status (KPS), none-bone target volume and fractionation (all with p < 0.001). If analyzed without fractionation, none-bone target volume (p < 0.001), hemoglobin (p < 0.001), KPS (p = 0.01), lack of additional systemic treatment (p = 0.01), and hypercalcemia (p = 0.04) were significant.

Conclusions

Fractionation is an easily modifiable factor with high impact on PRL. Patients with KPS < 70 and those treated for additional target types during the same course are at high risk of spending a larger proportion of their remaining life on treatment.