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.

Efficacy and safety of SBRT for spine metastases: A systematic review and meta-analysis for preparation of an ESTRO practice guideline

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.

Feasibility of salvage resection following locoregional failure after chemoradiotherapy and consolidation durvalumab for unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer

INTRODUCTION

In patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer, high-dose chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by consolidation durvalumab improves the 5-year overall survival compared to CRT alone. The feasibility and safety of salvage surgery for such patients who subsequently develop locoregional failure (LRF) is unclear. We evaluated our institutional experience with radical-intent salvage surgery in this patient population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Details of patients undergoing salvage surgery for locoregional failure after CRT and durvalumab were identified from an institutional surgical database. Each patient's case underwent multidisciplinary discussion at initial disease presentation, and again at time of progression.

RESULTS

Ten patients underwent salvage surgery for LRF after prior concurrent (n = 9) or sequential (n = 1) platinum-based high-dose chemo-radiotherapy followed by durvalumab. Consolidation durvalumab was completed in 4 patients, and discontinued in 6, due to either toxicity or disease progression. Median time between end of radiotherapy to detection of LRF was 19 months (range 6-75). Seven patients underwent a lobectomy, 1 a bilobectomy and 2 patients a pneumonectomy. Postoperative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade III-V) and 90-day mortality were 10% and 0%, respectively. Median follow-up after surgery was 7 months (range 1-25) during which 2 patients died (both 9 months post-operatively), one due to distant progression, and one of sepsis/bleeding. Eight patients are alive at 1-23 months post-surgery, with 6 showing no evidence of disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that salvage pulmonary resection can be performed safely in selected patients with LRF following chemoradiotherapy and durvalumab. This radical-intent treatment option merits consideration by multidisciplinary lung tumor boards.

Single-fraction 34Gy lung SBRT using proton transmission beams: FLASH-dose calculations and the influence of different dose-rate methods and dose/dose-rate thresholds

Purpose

Research suggests that in addition to the dose-rate, a dose threshold is also important for the reduction in normal tissue toxicity with similar tumor control after ultrahigh dose-rate radiation therapy (UHDR-RT). In this analysis we aimed to identify factors that might limit the ability to achieve this “FLASH”-effect in a scenario attractive for UHDR-RT (high fractional beam dose, small target, few organs-at-risk): single-fraction 34 Gy lung stereotactic body radiation therapy.

Methods and Materials

Clinical volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans, intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans and transmission beam (TB) plans were compared for 6 small and 1 large lung lesion. The TB-plan dose-rate was calculated using 4 methods and the FLASH-percentage (percentage of dose delivered at dose-rates ≥40/100 Gy/s and ≥4/8 Gy) was determined for various variables: a minimum spot time (minST) of 0.5/2 ms, maximum nozzle current (maxN) of 200/40 0nA, and 2 gantry current (GC) techniques (energy-layer based, spot-based [SB]).

Results

Based on absolute doses 5-beam TB and VMAT-plans are similar, but TB-plans have higher rib, skin, and ipsilateral lung dose than IMPT. Dose-rate calculation methods not considering scanning achieve FLASH-percentages between ∼30% to 80%, while methods considering scanning often achieve <30%. FLASH-percentages increase for lower minST/higher maxN and when using SB GC instead of energy-layer based GC, often approaching the percentage of dose exceeding the dose-threshold. For the small lesions average beam irradiation times (including scanning) varied between 0.06 to 0.31 seconds and total irradiation times between 0.28 to 1.57 seconds, for the large lesion beam times were between 0.16 to 1.47 seconds with total irradiation times of 1.09 to 5.89 seconds.

Conclusions

In a theoretically advantageous scenario for FLASH we found that TB-plan dosimetry was similar to that of VMAT, but inferior to that of IMPT, and that decreasing minST or using SB GC increase the estimated amount of FLASH. For the appropriate machine/delivery parameters high enough dose-rates can be achieved regardless of calculation method, meaning that a possible FLASH dose-threshold will likely be the primary limiting factor.

A nationwide population-based cohort study of surgical care for patients with superior sulcus tumors: Results from the Dutch Lung Cancer Audit for Surgery (DLCA-S)

OBJECTIVES

Data on national patterns of care for patients with superior sulcus tumors (SST) is currently lacking. We investigated the distribution of surgical care and outcome for patients with SST in the Netherlands.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data was retrieved from the Dutch Lung Cancer Audit for Surgery (DLCA-S) for all patients undergoing resection for clinical stage IIB-IV SST from 2012 to 2019. Because DLCA-S is not linked to survival data, survival for a separate cohort (2015-2017) was obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR).

RESULTS

In the study period, 181 patients had SST surgery, representing 1.03% (181/17488) of all lung cancer pulmonary resections. For 2015-2017, the SST resection rate was 14.4% (79/549), and patients with stage IIB/III SST treated with trimodality had a 3-year overall survival of 67.4%. 63.5% of patients were male, and median age was 60 years. Almost 3/4 of tumors were right sided. Surgery was performed in 20 hospitals, with average number of annual resections ranging from ≤ 1 (n = 17) to 9 (n = 1). 39.8% of resections were performed in 1 center and 63.5% in the 3 most active centers. 12.7% of resections were extended (e.g. vertebral resection). 85.1% of resections were complete (R0). Morbidity and 30-day mortality were 51.4% and 3.3% respectively. Despite treating patients with a higher ECOG performance score and more extended resections, the highest volume center had rates of morbidity/mortality, and length of hospital stay that were comparable to those of the medium volume (n = 2) and low-volume centers (n = 1).

CONCLUSION

In the Netherlands, surgery for SST accounts for about 1% of all lung cancer pulmonary resections, the number of SST resections/hospital/year varies widely, with most centers performing an average of ≤ 1/year. Morbidity and mortality are acceptable and survival compares favourably with the literature. Although further centralisation is possible, it is unknown whether this will improve outcomes.