Unknown

Dataset Information

0

Single-Fraction Stereotactic vs Conventional Multifraction Radiotherapy for Pain Relief in Patients With Predominantly Nonspine Bone Metastases: A Randomized Phase 2 Trial.


ABSTRACT: Importance:Consensus is lacking as to the optimal radiotherapy dose and fractionation schedule for treating bone metastases. Objective:To assess the relative efficacy of high-dose, single-fraction stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) vs standard multifraction radiotherapy (MFRT) for alleviation of pain in patients with mostly nonspine bone metastases. Design, Setting, and Participants:This prospective, randomized, single-institution phase 2 noninferiority trial conducted at a tertiary cancer care center enrolled 160 patients with radiologically confirmed painful bone metastases from September 19, 2014, through June 19, 2018. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either single-fraction SBRT (12 Gy for ?4-cm lesions or 16 Gy for <4-cm lesions) or MFRT to 30 Gy in 10 fractions. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary end point was pain response, defined by international consensus criteria as a combination of pain score and analgesic use (daily morphine-equivalent dose). Pain failure (ie, lack of response) was defined as worsening pain score (?2 points on a 0-to-10 scale), an increase in morphine-equivalent opioid dose of 50% or more, reirradiation, or pathologic fracture. We hypothesized that SBRT was noninferior to MFRT. Results:In this phase 2 noninferiority trial of 96 men and 64 women (mean [SD] age, 62.4 [10.4] years), 81 patients received SBRT and 79 received MFRT. Among evaluable patients who received treatment per protocol, the single-fraction group had more pain responders than the MFRT group (complete response?+?partial response) at 2 weeks (34 of 55 [62%] vs 19 of 52 [36%]) (P?=?.01), 3 months (31 of 43 [72%] vs 17 of 35 [49%]) (P?=?.03), and 9 months (17 of 22 [77%] vs 12 of 26 [46%]) (P?=?.03). No differences were found in treatment-related toxic effects or quality-of-life scores after SBRT vs MFRT; local control rates at 1 and 2 years were higher in patients receiving single-fraction SBRT. Conclusions and Relevance:Delivering high-dose, single-fraction SBRT seems to be an effective treatment option for patients with painful bone metastases. Among evaluable patients, SBRT had higher rates of pain response (complete response?+?partial response) than did MFRT and thus should be considered for patients expected to have relatively long survival. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02163226.

SUBMITTER: Nguyen QN 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6487911 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

altmetric image

Publications

Single-Fraction Stereotactic vs Conventional Multifraction Radiotherapy for Pain Relief in Patients With Predominantly Nonspine Bone Metastases: A Randomized Phase 2 Trial.

Nguyen Quynh-Nhu QN   Chun Stephen G SG   Chow Edward E   Komaki Ritsuko R   Liao Zhongxing Z   Zacharia Rensi R   Szeto Bill K BK   Welsh James W JW   Hahn Stephen M SM   Fuller C David CD   Moon Bryan S BS   Bird Justin E JE   Satcher Robert R   Lin Patrick P PP   Jeter Melenda M   O'Reilly Michael S MS   Lewis Valerae O VO  

JAMA oncology 20190601 6


<h4>Importance</h4>Consensus is lacking as to the optimal radiotherapy dose and fractionation schedule for treating bone metastases.<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the relative efficacy of high-dose, single-fraction stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) vs standard multifraction radiotherapy (MFRT) for alleviation of pain in patients with mostly nonspine bone metastases.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>This prospective, randomized, single-institution phase 2 noninferiority trial conducted a  ...[more]

Similar Datasets

| S-EPMC8417953 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC6816218 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC6728984 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC6792073 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC10838428 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC4735957 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC3656557 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC6842277 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC5710529 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC7447473 | biostudies-literature