Dataset Information

Stereotactic body radiation therapy for management of spinal metastases in patients without spinal cord compression: a phase 1-2 trial.

ABSTRACT: Spinal stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is increasingly used to manage spinal metastases, yet the technique's effectiveness in controlling the symptom burden of spinal metastases has not been well described. We investigated the clinical benefit of SBRT for managing spinal metastases and reducing cancer-related symptoms.149 patients with mechanically stable, non-cord-compressing spinal metastases (166 lesions) were given SBRT in a phase 1-2 study. Patients received a total dose of 27-30 Gy, typically in three fractions. Symptoms were measured before SBRT and at several time points up to 6 months after treatment, by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and the M D Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI). The primary endpoint was frequency and duration of complete pain relief. The study is completed and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00508443.Median follow-up was 15·9 months (IQR 9·5-30·3). The number of patients reporting no pain from bone metastases, as measured by the BPI, increased from 39 of 149 (26%) before SBRT to 55 of 102 (54%) 6 months after SBRT (p<0·0001). BPI-reported pain reduction from baseline to 4 weeks after SBRT was clinically meaningful (mean 3·4 [SD 2·9] on the BPI pain-at-its-worst item at baseline, 2·1 [2·4] at 4 weeks; effect size 0·47, p=0·00076). These improvements were accompanied by significant reduction in opioid use during the first 6 months after SBRT (43 [28·9%] of 149 patients with strong opioid use at baseline vs 20 [20·0%] of 100 at 6 months; p=0·011). Ordinal regression modelling showed that patients reported significant pain reduction according to the MDASI during the first 6 months after SBRT (p=0·00003), and significant reductions in a composite score of the six MDASI symptom interference with daily life items (p=0·0066). Only a few instances of non-neurological grade 3 toxicities occurred: nausea (one event), vomiting (one), diarrhoea (one), fatigue (one), dysphagia (one), neck pain (one), and diaphoresis (one); pain associated with severe tongue oedema and trismus occurred twice; and non-cardiac chest pain was reported three times. No grade 4 toxicities occurred. Progression-free survival after SBRT was 80·5% (95% CI 72·9-86·1) at 1 year and 72·4% (63·1-79·7) at 2 years.SBRT is an effective primary or salvage treatment for mechanically stable spinal metastasis. Significant reductions in patient-reported pain and other symptoms were evident 6 months after SBRT, along with satisfactory progression-free survival and no late spinal cord toxicities.National Cancer Institute of the US National Institutes of Health.

SUBMITTER: Wang XS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3605896 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Stereotactic body radiation therapy for management of spinal metastases in patients without spinal cord compression: a phase 1-2 trial.

Wang Xin Shelley XS Rhines Laurence D LD Shiu Almon S AS Yang James N JN Selek Ugur U Gning Ibrahima I Liu Ping P Allen Pamela K PK Azeem Syed S SS Brown Paul D PD Sharp Hadley J HJ Weksberg David C DC Cleeland Charles S CS Chang Eric L EL

The Lancet. Oncology 20120127 4

<h4>Background</h4>Spinal stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is increasingly used to manage spinal metastases, yet the technique's effectiveness in controlling the symptom burden of spinal metastases has not been well described. We investigated the clinical benefit of SBRT for managing spinal metastases and reducing cancer-related symptoms.<h4>Methods</h4>149 patients with mechanically stable, non-cord-compressing spinal metastases (166 lesions) were given SBRT in a phase 1-2 study. Pati ...[more]

PMID: 22285199

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceVertebral compression fracture (VCF) is a potential adverse effect following treatment with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for spinal metastases.ObjectiveTo develop and assess a risk stratification model for VCF after SBRT.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study conducted at a high-volume referral center included 331 patients who had undergone 464 spine SBRT treatments from December 2007 through October 2019. Data analysis was conducted from November 1, 2020, to August 17, 2021. Exclusions included proton therapy, prior surgical intervention, vertebroplasty, or missing data.ExposuresOne and 3 fraction spine SBRT treatments were most commonly delivered. Single-fraction treatments generally involved prescribed doses of 16 to 24 Gy (median, 20 Gy; range, 16-30 Gy) to gross disease compared with multifraction treatment that delivered a median of 30 Gy (range, 21-50 Gy).Main outcomes and measuresThe VCF and radiography components of the spinal instability neoplastic score were determined by a radiologist. Recursive partitioning analysis was conducted using separate training (70%), internal validation (15%), and test (15%) sets. The log-rank test was the criterion for node splitting.ResultsOf the 331 participants, 88 were women (27%), and the mean (IQR) age was 63 (59-72) years. With a median follow-up of 21 months (IQR, 11-39 months), we identified 84 VCFs (18%), including 65 (77%) de novo and 19 (23%) progressive fractures. There was a median of 9 months (IQR, 3-21 months) to developing a VCF. From 15 candidate variables, 6 were identified using the backward selection method, feature importance testing, and a correlation heatmap. Four were selected via recursive partitioning analysis: epidural tumor extension, lumbar location, gross tumor volume of more than 10 cc, and a spinal instability neoplastic score of more than 6. One point was assigned to each variable, and the resulting multivariable Cox model had a concordance of 0.760. The hazard ratio per 1-point increase for VCF was 1.93 (95% CI, 1.62-2.30; P < .001). The cumulative incidence of VCF at 2 years (with death as a competing risk) was 6.7% (95% CI, 4.2%-10.7%) for low-risk (score, 0-1; 273 [58.3%]), 17.0% (95% CI, 10.8%-26.7%) for intermediate-risk (score, 2; 99 [21.3%]), and 35.4% (95% CI, 26.7%-46.9%) for high-risk cases (score, 3-4; 92 [19.8%]) (P < .001). Similar results were observed for freedom from VCF using stratification.Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this cohort study identify a subgroup of patients with high risk for VCF following treatment with SBRT who may potentially benefit from undergoing prophylactic spinal stabilization or vertebroplasty.

Project description:OBJECTIVE Although postoperative stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for spinal metastases is increasingly performed, few guidelines exist for this application. The purpose of this study is to develop consensus guidelines to promote safe and effective treatment for patients with spinal metastases. METHODS Fifteen radiation oncologists and 5 neurosurgeons, representing 19 centers in 4 countries and having a collective experience of more than 1300 postoperative spine SBRT cases, completed a 19-question survey about postoperative spine SBRT practice. Responses were defined as follows: 1) consensus: selected by ≥ 75% of respondents; 2) predominant: selected by 50% of respondents or more; and 3) controversial: no single response selected by a majority of respondents. RESULTS Consensus treatment indications included: radioresistant primary, 1-2 levels of adjacent disease, and previous radiation therapy. Contraindications included: involvement of more than 3 contiguous vertebral bodies, ASIA Grade A status (complete spinal cord injury without preservation of motor or sensory function), and postoperative Bilsky Grade 3 residual (cord compression without any CSF around the cord). For treatment planning, co-registration of the preoperative MRI and postoperative T1-weighted MRI (with or without gadolinium) and delineation of the cord on the T2-weighted MRI (and/or CT myelogram in cases of significant hardware artifact) were predominant. Consensus GTV (gross tumor volume) was the postoperative residual tumor based on MRI. Predominant CTV (clinical tumor volume) practice was to include the postoperative bed defined as the entire extent of preoperative tumor, the relevant anatomical compartment and any residual disease. Consensus was achieved with respect to not including the surgical hardware and incision in the CTV. PTV (planning tumor volume) expansion was controversial, ranging from 0 to 2 mm. The spinal cord avoidance structure was predominantly the true cord. Circumferential treatment of the epidural space and margin for paraspinal extension was controversial. Prescription doses and spinal cord tolerances based on clinical scenario, neurological compromise, and prior overlapping treatments were controversial, but reasonable ranges are presented. Fifty percent of those surveyed practiced an integrated boost to areas of residual tumor and density override for hardware within the beam path. Acceptable PTV coverage was controversial, but consensus was achieved with respect to compromising coverage to meet cord constraint and fractionation to improve coverage while meeting cord constraint. CONCLUSIONS The consensus by spinal radiosurgery experts suggests that postoperative SBRT is indicated for radioresistant primary lesions, disease confined to 1-2 vertebral levels, and/or prior overlapping radiotherapy. The GTV is the postoperative residual tumor, and the CTV is the postoperative bed defined as the entire extent of preoperative tumor and anatomical compartment plus residual disease. Hardware and scar do not need to be included in CTV. While predominant agreement was reached about treatment planning and definition of organs at risk, future investigation will be critical in better understanding areas of controversy, including whether circumferential treatment of the epidural space is necessary, management of paraspinal extension, and the optimal dose fractionation schedules.

Project description:PurposeSpinal cord delineation is critical to the delivery of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Although underestimating the spinal cord can lead to irreversible myelopathy, overestimating the spinal cord may compromise the planning target volume coverage. We compare spinal cord contours based on computed tomography (CT) simulation with a myelogram to spinal cord contours based on fused axial T2 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).Methods and materialsEight patients with 9 spinal metastases treated with spinal SBRT were contoured by 8 radiation oncologists, neurosurgeons, and physicists, with spinal cord definition based on (1) fused axial T2 MRI and (2) CT-myelogram simulation images, yielding 72 sets of spinal cord contours. The spinal cord volume was contoured at the target vertebral body volume based on both images. The mixed-effect model assessed comparisons of T2 MRI- to myelogram-defined spinal cord in centroid deviations (deviations in the center point of the cord) through the vertebral body target volume, spinal cord volumes, and maximum doses (0.035 cc point) to the spinal cord applying the patient's SBRT treatment plan, in addition to in-between and within-subject variabilities.ResultsThe estimate for the fixed effect from the mixed model showed that the mean difference between 72 CT volumes and 72 MRI volumes was 0.06 cc and was not statistically significant (95% confidence interval, -0.034, 0.153; P = .1832). The mixed model showed that the mean dose at 0.035 cc for CT-defined spinal cord contours was 1.24 Gy lower than that of MRI-defined spinal cord contours and was statistically significant (95% confidence interval, -2.292, -0.180; P = .0271). Also, the mixed model indicated no statistical significance for deviations in any of the axes between MRI-defined spinal cord contours and CT-defined spinal cord contours.ConclusionsCT myelogram may not be required when MRI imaging is feasible, although uncertainty at the cord-to-treatment volume interface may result in overcontouring and hence higher estimated cord dose-maximums with axial T2 MRI-based cord definition.

Project description:Aim:Radiation therapy has been proven “safe and effective” in the management of colorectal cancer liver metastases, especially for oligometastases. However, to date, there is no consensus on optimal prescribed doses or dose fraction schemes. The current study was conducted to investigate the effectiveness and safety of 2 different radiation therapy methods, conventional conformal radiation therapy and stereotactic body radiation therapy, in the treatment of limited colorectal cancer liver metastases.Methods:From December 2011 to December 2016, twenty-six patients with colorectal cancer having postoperative liver metastases (?3) who were being treated with radiation therapy, either conventional conformal radiation therapy (50 Gy in 25 fractions) or stereotactic body radiation therapy (50 Gy in 10 fractions), were selected for this study. Overall survival and local control survival were analyzed by log-rank and Cox regression methods.Results:Radiation therapy delivered to each of the 26 patients with a total of 50 liver lesions. Conformal radiation therapy was delivered to 32 lesions in a total of 15 patients. Stereotactic body radiation therapy was delivered to 18 lesions in a total of 11 patients. Median follow-up was 13 months. Three-year overall survival and local control survival were 0% and 38.5%, 20.5%, and 53.0%, respectively, for the conformal radiation therapy and stereotactic body radiation therapy groups. The slightly better overall survival and local control survival in the stereotactic body radiation therapy group in comparison to the conformal radiation therapy group (P = .323 and .297) is insignificant. There were no differences in grade 3 hepatic toxicity between the 2 groups. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and the number of liver lesions were significant prognostic factors in both univariate and multivariate analyses.Conclusions:Noninvasive radiation therapy provides satisfactory survival benefit for limited colorectal cancer liver metastases without intolerable toxicity and is therefore especially suitable for those elderly patients with poor performance status. Furthermore, stereotactic body radiation therapy with a higher biological equivalent dose and an abbreviated course of treatment has been shown to provide a better outcome than conventional conformal radiation therapy.

Dataset Information

Stereotactic body radiation therapy for management of spinal metastases in patients without spinal cord compression: a phase 1-2 trial.

Publications

Stereotactic body radiation therapy for management of spinal metastases in patients without spinal cord compression: a phase 1-2 trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets