Dataset Information

Long-term outcome after combined kyphoplasty and intraoperative radiotherapy (Kypho-IORT) for vertebral tumors.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:The spine represents the site which is most frequently affected by bone metastases in patients with systemic cancer. Of all local treatment options, combined kyphoplasty and intraoperative radiotherapy (Kypho-IORT) provides both, instantaneous stabilization and immediate pain relief. We here report on the long-term outcomes of the largest cohort treated with Kypho-IORT to date. METHODS:Between 2009 and 2019 a total of 104 patients underwent Kypho-IORT to vertebral tumors in the thoracic, lumbar, or sacral spine with transpedicular kyphoplasty and intraoperative irradiation with a needle-shaped electronic brachytherapy source at our center. Patients were treated either on trial, within the prospective Kypho-IORT studies (NCT01280032 and NCT02773966), or, after completion of the study, off trial but compliant with the study protocol. Follow-up and imaging with computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging was scheduled after 3 and 6 months and then bi-annually. RESULTS:A total of 143 vertebrae (89 thoracic spine, 53 lumbar spine, and 1 sacral spine) were treated in 104 patients. The median follow-up was 14.5 months (range 0.4-109). Local progression occurred in 10 patients (10 vertebrae) after a median time of 22.3 months (range 1.5-73) resulting in local control rates of 97.1, 95.9, and 94.2% at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. Overall survival was 74.6, 61.7, and 50.3% at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. A single serious adverse event was reported. CONCLUSION:In addition to immediate pain reduction and stabilization, Kypho-IORT shows excellent long-term local control with minimal side effects.

SUBMITTER: Bludau F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7664102 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Long-term outcome after combined kyphoplasty and intraoperative radiotherapy (Kypho-IORT) for vertebral tumors.

Bludau Frederic F Winter Laura L Welzel Grit G Obertacke Udo U Schneider Frank F Wenz Frederik F Ruder Arne Mathias AM Giordano Frank A FA

Radiation oncology (London, England) 20201112 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>The spine represents the site which is most frequently affected by bone metastases in patients with systemic cancer. Of all local treatment options, combined kyphoplasty and intraoperative radiotherapy (Kypho-IORT) provides both, instantaneous stabilization and immediate pain relief. We here report on the long-term outcomes of the largest cohort treated with Kypho-IORT to date.<h4>Methods</h4>Between 2009 and 2019 a total of 104 patients underwent Kypho-IORT to vertebral tum ...[more]

PMID: 33183307

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe spine is the most frequent location of bone metastases. Local treatment aims at palliation of pain and, given the increased likelihood of long-term cancer survival, at local control. Kyphoplasty and intraoperative radiotherapy (Kypho-IORT) provided instantaneous pain relief in 70% of patients at the first day after the intervention and resulted in local control rates of > 93% at 1 year in a recently conducted phase I/II trial. To assess its clinical value, we designed a phase III trial which tests Kypho-IORT against the most widespread standard-of-care, external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), in patients with painful vertebral metastases.MethodsThis phase III study includes patients ≥50 years of age with up to 4 vertebral metastases and a pain score of at least 3/10 points on the visual/numeric analogy scale (VAS). Patients randomized into the experimental arm (A) will undergo Kypho-IORT (Kyphoplasty plus IORT with 8 Gy prescribed to 13 mm depth). Patients randomized into the control arm (B) will receive EBRT with either 30 Gy in 10 fractions or 8 Gy as a single dose. The primary end point is pain reduction defined as at least - 3 points on the VAS compared to baseline at day 1. Assuming that 40% of patients in the Kypho-IORT arm and 5% of patients in the control arm will achieve this reduction and 20% will drop out, a total of 54 patients will have to be included to reach a power of 0.817 with a two-sided alpha of 0.05. Secondary endpoints are evaluation of the percentage of patients with a pain reduction of at least 3 points at 2 and 6 weeks, local tumor control, frequency of re-intervention, secondary fractures/sintering, complication rates, skin toxicity/wound healing, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and quality of life.DiscussionThis trial will generate level 1 evidence on the clinical value of a one-stop procedure which may provide instantaneous pain relief, long-term control and shortened intervals to further adjuvant (systemic) therapies in patients with spinal metastases.Trial registrationRegistered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number: NCT02773966 (Registration date: 05/16/2016).

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether risk adapted intraoperative radiotherapy, delivered as a single dose during lumpectomy, can effectively replace postoperative whole breast external beam radiotherapy for early breast cancer.DesignProspective, open label, randomised controlled clinical trial.Setting32 centres in 10 countries in the United Kingdom, Europe, Australia, the United States, and Canada.Participants2298 women aged 45 years and older with invasive ductal carcinoma up to 3.5 cm in size, cN0-N1, eligible for breast conservation and randomised before lumpectomy (1:1 ratio, blocks stratified by centre) to either risk adapted targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT-IORT) or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT).InterventionsRandom allocation was to the EBRT arm, which consisted of a standard daily fractionated course (three to six weeks) of whole breast radiotherapy, or the TARGIT-IORT arm. TARGIT-IORT was given immediately after lumpectomy under the same anaesthetic and was the only radiotherapy for most patients (around 80%). TARGIT-IORT was supplemented by EBRT when postoperative histopathology found unsuspected higher risk factors (around 20% of patients).Main outcome measuresNon-inferiority with a margin of 2.5% for the absolute difference between the five year local recurrence rates of the two arms, and long term survival outcomes.ResultsBetween 24 March 2000 and 25 June 2012, 1140 patients were randomised to TARGIT-IORT and 1158 to EBRT. TARGIT-IORT was non-inferior to EBRT: the local recurrence risk at five year complete follow-up was 2.11% for TARGIT-IORT compared with 0.95% for EBRT (difference 1.16%, 90% confidence interval 0.32 to 1.99). In the first five years, 13 additional local recurrences were reported (24/1140 v 11/1158) but 14 fewer deaths (42/1140 v 56/1158) for TARGIT-IORT compared with EBRT. With long term follow-up (median 8.6 years, maximum 18.90 years, interquartile range 7.0-10.6) no statistically significant difference was found for local recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.41, P=0.28), mastectomy-free survival (0.96, 0.78 to 1.19, P=0.74), distant disease-free survival (0.88, 0.69 to 1.12, P=0.30), overall survival (0.82, 0.63 to 1.05, P=0.13), and breast cancer mortality (1.12, 0.78 to 1.60, P=0.54). Mortality from other causes was significantly lower (0.59, 0.40 to 0.86, P=0.005).ConclusionFor patients with early breast cancer who met our trial selection criteria, risk adapted immediate single dose TARGIT-IORT during lumpectomy was an effective alternative to EBRT, with comparable long term efficacy for cancer control and lower non-breast cancer mortality. TARGIT-IORT should be discussed with eligible patients when breast conserving surgery is planned.Trial registrationISRCTN34086741, NCT00983684.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Since the results from the randomized TARGIT A trial were published, intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) is used more often. IORT can be provided as accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) or as a boost. The definition of suitable patients for IORT as APBI differs between different national societies (e.g. ESTRO and ASTRO) and different inclusion criteria of trials and so does the eligibility of patients. This analysis identifies eligible patients for IORT according to available consensus statements and inclusion criteria of the ongoing TARGIT trials. METHODS:Between 01/03 - 12/09, 1505 breast cancer cases were treated at the breast cancer center at the University Medical Center Mannheim. Complete data sets for age, stage (T, N, and M), histology and hormone receptor status were available in 1108 cases. Parameters to identify eligible patients are as follows: ESTRO: >50 years, invasive ductal carcinoma/other favorable histology (IDC), T1-2 (?3 cm), N0, any hormone receptor status, M0; ASTRO: ?60 years, IDC, T1, N0, positive estrogen hormone receptor status, M0; TARGIT E "elderly", risk adapted radiotherapy with IORT followed by external beam radiotherapy in case of risk factors in final histopathology, phase II: ?70 years, IDC, T1, N0, any hormone receptor status, M0; TARGIT C "consolidation", risk adapted radiotherapy, phase IV: ?50 years, IDC, T1, N0, positive hormone receptor status, M0; TARGIT BQR "boost quality registry": every age, every histology, T1-2 (max. 3.5 cm), any hormone receptor status, N0/+, M0/+. RESULTS:Out of the 1108 cases, 379 cases (34.2%) were suitable for IORT as APBI regarding the ESTRO and 175 (15.8%) regarding the ASTRO consensus statements. 82 (7.4%) patients were eligible for the TARGIT E trial, 258 (23.3%) for the TARGIT C trial and 671 (60.6%) for the TARGIT BQR registry. According to the consensus statements of ASTRO (45.1%) and ESTRO (41.4%) about half of the eligible patients were treated with IORT as APBI. From the eligible patients fulfilling the criteria for IORT boost (35%) about one third was eventually treated. CONCLUSIONS:Patient selection for IORT should be restrictive. For IORT as APBI the TARGIT trials are even more restrictive including patients than the ESTRO and ASTRO consensus statements.

Project description:To gather a deep qualitative understanding of the perceived benefits and impacts of External-Beam RadioTherapy (EBRT) and TARGeted Intraoperative radioTherapy (TARGIT-IORT) using Intrabeam to assess how the treatments affected patient/care partner experiences during their cancer treatment and beyond. A patient-led working group was established to guide study design and to help validate findings. Patients with experience of receiving EBRT or TARGIT-IORT were purposively sampled by Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. These patients had been offered both regimens as per their clinical features and eligibility. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 29 patients and care partners with lived experience of either EBRT (n=12, 5-day FAST-Forward regimen and n=3, 3-week regimen) or TARGIT-IORT (n=14). Thematic analysis was then carried out by two coders generating 11 themes related to EBRT or TARGIT-IORT. Semistructured interviews were conducted virtually via Zoom during February and March 2023. A number of procedural grievances were noted among EBRT patients. EBRT was perceived as being disruptive to normal routines (work, home and travel) and caused discomfort from side effects. TARGIT-IORT was perceived by patients and care partners as the safer option and efficient with minimal if any disruptions to quality of life. The need for timely accessible information to reduce anxieties was noted in both cohorts. This qualitative study found that patients perceived EBRT as being greatly disruptive to their lives. In contrast, the one-off feature of TARGIT-IORT given while they are asleep during surgery gives them the feeling of stamping out the cancer without conscious awareness. These insights can help healthcare staff and policy-makers further justify the incorporation of the treatment favoured by these patient perceptions (TARGIT-IORT) more widely in routine practice. Further research is planned to explore TARGIT-IORT in more diverse populations and in the 35 countries where it is an established treatment option.

Project description:PurposeThe electron energy characteristics of mobile intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) accelerator LIAC® differ from commonly used linear accelerators, thus some of the frequently used detectors can give less accurate results. The aim of this study is to evaluate the output factors (OFs) of several ionization chambers (IC) and solid state detectors (SS) for electron beam energies generated by LIAC® and compare with the output factor of Monte Carlo model (MC) in order to determine the adequate detectors for LIAC® .MethodsThe OFs were measured for 6, 8, 10, and 12 MeV electron energies with PTW 23343 Markus, PTW 34045 Advanced Markus, PTW 34001 Roos, IBA PPC05, IBA PPC40, IBA NACP-02, PTW 31010 Semiflex, PTW 31021 Semiflex 3D, PTW 31014 Pinpoint, PTW 60017 Diode E, PTW 60018 Diode SRS, SNC Diode EDGE, and PTW 60019 micro Diamond detectors. Ion recombination factors (ksat ) of IC were measured for all applicator sizes and OFs were corrected according to ksat . The measured OFs were compared with Monte Carlo output factors (OFMC ).ResultsThe measured OFs of IBA PPC05, PTW Advanced Markus, PTW Pinpoint, PTW microDiamond, and PTW Diode E detectors are in good agreement with OFMC . The maximum deviations of IBA PPC05 OFs to OFMC are -1.6%, +1.5%, +1.5%, and +2.0%; for PTW Advanced Markus +1.0%, +1.5%, +2.0%, and +2.0%; for PTW Pinpoint +2.0%, +1.6%, +4.0%, and +2.0%; for PTW microDiamond -1.6%, +2%, +1.1%, and +1.0%; and for PTW Diode E -+1.7%, +1.7%, +1.3%, and +2.5% for 6, 8, 10, and 12 MeV, respectively. PTW Roos, PTW Markus, IBA PPC40, PTW Semiflex, PTW Semiflex 3D, SNC Diode Edge measured OFs with a maximum deviation of +5.6%, +4.5%, +5.6%, +8.1%, +4.8%, and +9.6% with respect to OFMC , while PTW Diode SRS and IBA NACP-02 were the least accurate (with highest deviations -37.1% and -18.0%, respectively).ConclusionThe OFs results of solid state detectors PTW microDiamond and PTW Diode E as well as the ICs with small electrode spacing distance such as IBA PPC05, PTW Advanced Markus and PTW Pinpoint are in excellent agreement with OFMC . The measurements of the other detectors evaluated in this study are less accurate, thus they should be used with caution. Particularly, PTW Diode SRS and IBA NACP-02 are not suitable and their use should be avoided in relative dosimetry measurements under high dose per pulsed (DPP) electron beams.

Project description:Soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) represent a rare tumor entity, accounting for less than 1% of adult malignancies. The cornerstone of curative intent treatment is surgery with free margins, although the extent of the surgical approach has been subject to change in the last decades. Multimodal approaches usually including radiation therapy have replaced extensive surgical procedures in order to preserve functionality while maintaining adequate local control. However, the possibility to apply adequate radiation doses by external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) can be limited in some situation especially in case of directly adjacent organs at risk with low radiation tolerance. Application of at least a part of the total dose via intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) with a single fraction during the surgical procedure may overcome those limitations, because radiosensitive structures can be moved out of the radiation field resulting in reduced toxicity while the enhanced biological effectivity of the high single dose improves local control. The current review summarizes rationale, techniques, oncological and functional outcomes including possible pitfalls and associated toxicities based on the published literature for IORT focusing on extremity and retroperitoneal STS. In extremity STS, combination of limb-sparing surgery, IORT and pre- or postoperative EBRT with moderate doses consistently achieved excellent local control rates at least comparable to approaches using EBRT alone but usually including patient cohorts with higher proportions of unfavourable prognostic factors. Further on, IORT containing approaches resulted in very high limb preservation rates and good functional outcome, probably related to the smaller high dose volume. In retroperitoneal STS, the combination of preoperative EBRT, surgery and IORT consistently achieved high local control rates which seem superior to surgery alone or surgery with EBRT at least with regard to local control and in some reports even to overall survival. Further on, preoperative EBRT in combination with IORT seems to be superior to the opposite combination with regard to local control and toxicity. No major differences in wound healing disturbances or postoperative complication rates can be observed with IORT compared to non-IORT containing approaches. Neuropathy of major nerves remains a dose limiting toxicity requiring dose restrictions or exclusion from target volume. Gastrointestinal structures and ureters should be excluded from the IORT area whenever possible and the IORT volume should be restricted to the available minimum. Nevertheless, IORT represents an ideal boosting method if combined with EBRT and properly executed by experiences users which should be further evaluated preferably in prospective randomized trials.

Project description:ObjectiveThe clinical effectiveness of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (TARGIT-IORT) has been confirmed in the randomised TARGIT-A (targeted intraoperative radiotherapy-alone) trial to be similar to a several weeks' course of whole-breast external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) in patients with early breast cancer. This study aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of TARGIT-IORT to inform policy decisions about its wider implementation.SettingTARGIT-A randomised clinical trial (ISRCTN34086741) which compared TARGIT with traditional EBRT and found similar breast cancer control, particularly when TARGIT was given simultaneously with lumpectomy.MethodsCost-utility analysis using decision analytic modelling by a Markov model. A cost-effectiveness Markov model was developed using TreeAge Pro V.2015. The decision analytic model compared two strategies of radiotherapy for breast cancer in a hypothetical cohort of patients with early breast cancer based on the published health state transition probability data from the TARGIT-A trial. Analysis was performed for UK setting and National Health Service (NHS) healthcare payer's perspective using NHS cost data and treatment outcomes were simulated for both strategies for a time horizon of 10 years. Model health state utilities were drawn from the published literature. Future costs and effects were discounted at the rate of 3.5%. To address uncertainty, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.Main outcome measuresQuality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).ResultsIn the base case analysis, TARGIT-IORT was a highly cost-effective strategy yielding health gain at a lower cost than its comparator EBRT. Discounted TARGIT-IORT and EBRT costs for the time horizon of 10 years were £12 455 and £13 280, respectively. TARGIT-IORT gained 0.18 incremental QALY as the discounted QALYs gained by TARGIT-IORT were 8.15 and by EBRT were 7.97 showing TARGIT-IORT as a dominant strategy over EBRT. Model outputs were robust to one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsTARGIT-IORT is a dominant strategy over EBRT, being less costly and producing higher QALY gain.Trial registration numberISRCTN34086741; post results.

Dataset Information

Long-term outcome after combined kyphoplasty and intraoperative radiotherapy (Kypho-IORT) for vertebral tumors.

Publications

Long-term outcome after combined kyphoplasty and intraoperative radiotherapy (Kypho-IORT) for vertebral tumors.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets