High-dose single-fraction IMRT versus fractionated external beam radiotherapy for patients with spinal bone metastases: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Stereotactic body radiation therapy for spinal metastases: A new standard of care

Advancements in systemic therapies for patients with metastatic cancer have improved overall survival and, hence, the number of patients living with spinal metastases. As a result, the need for more versatile and personalized treatments for spinal metastases to optimize long-term pain and local control has become increasingly important. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has been developed to meet this need by providing precise and conformal delivery of ablative high-dose-per-fraction radiation in few fractions while minimizing risk of toxicity. Additionally, advances in minimally invasive surgical techniques have also greatly improved care for patients with epidural disease and/or unstable spines, which may then be combined with SBRT for durable local control. In this review, we highlight the indications and controversies of SBRT along with new surgical techniques for the treatment of spinal metastases.

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

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

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy versus Conventional External Beam Radiation Therapy for Painful Bone Metastases: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy and safety of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and conventional external beam radiation therapy (cEBRT) in patients with previously unirradiated painful bone metastases (BM).

METHODS

We searched biomedical databases for eligible randomized trials (RCTs). The outcomes of interest were pain response, local progression, overall survival (OS) and adverse events. We used established tools to assess the quality of the individual trials and certainty of the pooled evidence. We performed meta-analyses using random effects models.

RESULTS

Six RCTs were identified. SBRT improved complete pain response rates at 3 months (OR, 3.38; 95% CI, 1.88-6.07; high certainty), reduced local progression rates (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.06-0.62; high certainty) and increase pain flare rates. There were no differences for other outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with previously unirradiated painful BM, SBRT significantly improved complete pain response rates at 3 months, delayed local progression and increase pain flare rates.

Translational Strategies to Target Metastatic Bone Disease

Metastatic bone disease is a common and devastating complication to cancer, confounding treatments and recovery efforts and presenting a significant barrier to de-escalating the adverse outcomes associated with disease progression. Despite significant advances in the field, bone metastases remain presently incurable and contribute heavily to cancer-associated morbidity and mortality. Mechanisms associated with metastatic bone disease perpetuation and paralleled disruption of bone remodeling are highlighted to convey how they provide the foundation for therapeutic targets to stem disease escalation. The focus of this review aims to describe the preclinical modeling and diagnostic evaluation of metastatic bone disease as well as discuss the range of therapeutic modalities used clinically and how they may impact skeletal tissue.

Independent risk factors evaluation for overall survival and cancer-specific survival in thyroid cancer patients with bone metastasis: A study for construction and validation of the predictive nomogram

Bone is a frequent site for the occurrence of metastasis of thyroid cancer (TC). TC with bone metastasis (TCBM) is associated with skeletal-related events (SREs), with poor prognosis and low overall survival (OS). Therefore, it is necessary to develop a predictive nomogram for prognostic evaluation. This study aimed to construct an effective nomogram for predicting the OS and cancer-specific survival (CSS) of TC patients with BM. Those TC patients with newly diagnosed BM were retrospectively examined over a period of 6 years from 2010 to 2016 using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database. Demographics and clinicopathological data were collected for further analysis. Patients were randomly allocated into training and validation cohorts with a ratio of ∼7:3. OS and CSS were retrieved as research endpoints. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed for identifying independent predictors. Overall, 242 patients were enrolled in this study. Age, histologic grade, histological subtype, tumor size, radiotherapy, liver metastatic status, and lung metastatic status were determined as the independent prognostic factors for predicting the OS and CSS in TCBM patients. Based on the results, visual nomograms were separately developed and validated for predicting 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS and CSS in TCBM patients on the ground of above results. The calibration, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and decision curve analysis (DCA) also demonstrated the reliability and accuracy of the clinical prediction model. Our predictive model is expected to be a personalized and easily applicable tool for evaluating the prognosis of TCBM patients, and may contribute toward making an accurate judgment in clinical practice.

Local response and pathologic fractures following stereotactic body radiotherapy versus three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for spinal metastases - a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

This was a prespecified secondary analysis of a randomized trial, which analyzed bone density following stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) versus conventional three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) as part of palliative management of painful spinal metastases.

METHODS

Fifty-five patients were enrolled in this single-institutional randomized exploratory trial (NCT02358720). Participants were randomly assigned to receive SBRT (single-fraction 24 Gy) or 3DCRT (30 Gy/10 fractions). Quantitative bone density was evaluated at baseline, 3 and 6 months in both irradiated and unirradiated spinal bodies, along with rates of pathologic fractures and vertebral compression fractures.

RESULTS

As compared to baseline, bone density became significantly higher at 3 and 6 months following SBRT by a median of 33.8% and 72.1%, respectively (p < 0.01 for both). These figures in the 3DCRT cohort were 32.9% and 41.2%, respectively (p < 0.01 for both). There were no statistical differences in bone density between SBRT and 3DCRT at 3 (p = 0.629) or 6 months (p = 0.327). Subgroup analysis of osteolytic metastases showed an increase in bone density relative to baseline in the SBRT (but not 3DCRT) arm. Bone density in unaffected vertebrae did not show substantial changes in either group. The 3-month incidence of new pathological fractures was 8.7% in the SBRT arm vs. 4.3% in the 3DCRT arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite high ablative doses in the SBRT arm, the significant increase in bone density after 3 and 6 months was similar to that of 3DCRT. Our trial demonstrated a moderate rate of subsequent pathological fracture after SBRT. Future randomized investigations with larger sample sizes are recommended.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.clinicaltrials.gov : NCT02358720 on 9nd of February 2015.

[Radiotherapy of bone metastases in France: A descriptive monocentric retrospective study]

PURPOSE

Bone metastases cause pain and affect patients' quality of life. Radiation therapy is one of the reference analgesic treatments. The objective of this study was to compare the current practices of a French radiotherapy department for the treatment of uncomplicated bone metastases with data from the literature in order to improve and optimize the management of patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective monocentric study of patients who underwent palliative irradiation of uncomplicated bone metastases was performed.

RESULTS

Ninety-one patients had 116 treatments of uncomplicated bone metastases between January 2014 and December 2015, including 44 men (48%) and 47 women (52%) with an average age of 63years (25-88years). Primary tumours most commonly found were breast cancer (35%), lung cancer (16%) and prostate cancer (12%). The regimens used were in 29% of cases 30Gy in ten fractions (group 30Gy), in 21% of cases 20Gy in five fractions (group 20Gy), in 22% of cases 8Gy in one fraction (group 8Gy) and in 28% of cases 23.31Gy in three fractions of stereotactic body irradiation (stereotactic group). The general condition of the patient (P<0.001), pain score and analgesic (P<0.001), oligometastatic profile (P=0.003) and practitioner experience (P<0.001) were factors influencing the choice of the regimen irradiation. Age (P=0.46), sex (P=0.14), anticancer treatments (P=0.56), concomitant hospitalization (P=0.14) and the distance between the radiotherapy centre and home (P=0.87) did not influence the decision significantly. A total of three cases of spinal compression and one case of post-therapeutic fracture were observed, occurring between one and 128days and 577days after irradiation, respectively. Eight percent of all irradiated metastases were reirradiated with a delay ranging between 13 and 434days after the first irradiation. The re-irradiation rate was significantly higher after 8Gy (P=0.02). The rate of death was significantly lower in the stereotactic arm (P<0.001) and overall survival was significantly greater in the stereotactic arm (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

This study showed that patients' analysed was comparable to the population of different studies. Predictive factors for the choice of the treatment regimen were identified. Non-fractionnated therapy was underutilised while stereotactic treatment was increasingly prescribed, showing an evolution in the management of patients.

Comparing conVEntional RadioTherapy with stereotactIC body radiotherapy in patients with spinAL metastases: study protocol for an randomized controlled trial following the cohort multiple randomized controlled trial design

BACKGROUND

Standard radiotherapy is the treatment of first choice in patients with symptomatic spinal metastases, but is only moderately effective. Stereotactic body radiation therapy is increasingly used to treat spinal metastases, without randomized evidence of superiority over standard radiotherapy. The VERTICAL study aims to quantify the effect of stereotactic radiation therapy in patients with metastatic spinal disease.

METHODS/DESIGN

This study follows the 'cohort multiple Randomized Controlled Trial' design. The VERTICAL study is conducted within the PRESENT cohort. In PRESENT, all patients with bone metastases referred for radiation therapy are enrolled. For each patient, clinical and patient-reported outcomes are captured at baseline and at regular intervals during follow-up. In addition, patients give informed consent to be offered experimental interventions. Within PRESENT, 110 patients are identified as a sub cohort of eligible patients (i.e. patients with unirradiated painful, mechanically stable spinal metastases who are able to undergo stereotactic radiation therapy). After a protocol amendment, also patients with non-spinal bony metastases are eligible. From the sub cohort, a random selection of patients is offered stereotactic radiation therapy (n = 55), which patients may accept or refuse. Only patients accepting stereotactic radiation therapy sign informed consent for the VERTICAL trial. Non-selected patients (n = 55) receive standard radiotherapy, and are not aware of them serving as controls. Primary endpoint is pain response after three months. Data will be analyzed by intention to treat, complemented by instrumental variable analysis in case of substantial refusal of the stereotactic radiation therapy in the intervention arm.

DISCUSSION

This study is designed to quantify the treatment response after (stereotactic) radiation therapy in patients with symptomatic spinal metastases. This is the first randomized study in palliative care following the cohort multiple Randomized Controlled Trial design. This design addresses common difficulties associated with classic pragmatic randomized controlled trials, such as disappointment bias in patients allocated to the control arm, slow recruitment, and poor generalizability.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Netherlands Trials Register number NL49316.041.14. ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT02364115 . Date of trial registration February 1, 2015.