Dataset Information

Cryoablation for Palliation of Painful Bone Metastases: The MOTION Multicenter Study.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To assess the clinical effectiveness of cryoablation for palliation of painful bone metastases.

Materials and methods

MOTION (Multicenter Study of Cryoablation for Palliation of Painful Bone Metastases) (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02511678) was a multicenter, prospective, single-arm study of adults with metastatic bone disease who were not candidates for or had not benefited from standard therapy, that took place from February 2016 to March 2018. At baseline, participants rated their pain using the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (reference range from 0 to 10 points); those with moderate to severe pain, who had at least one metastatic candidate tumor for ablation, were included. The primary effectiveness endpoint was change in pain score from baseline to week 8. Participants were followed for 24 weeks after treatment. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics and logistic regression to evaluate changes in pain score over the postprocedure follow-up period.

Results

A total of 66 participants (mean age, 60.8 years ± 14.3 [standard deviation]; 35 [53.0%] men) were enrolled and received cryoablation; 65 completed follow-up. Mean change in pain score from baseline to week 8 was -2.61 points (95% CI: -3.45, -1.78). Mean pain scores improved by 2 points at week 1 and reached clinically meaningful levels (more than a 2-point decrease) after week 8; scores continued to improve throughout follow-up. Quality of life improved, opioid doses were stabilized, and functional status was maintained over 6 months. Serious adverse events occurred in three participants.

Conclusion

Cryoablation of metastatic bone tumors provided rapid and durable pain palliation, improved quality of life, and offered an alternative to opioids for pain control.Keywords: Ablation Techniques, Metastases, Pain Management, Radiation Therapy/OncologySupplemental material is available for this article.© RSNA, 2021.

SUBMITTER: Jennings JW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8011449 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRadiotherapy has a good effect in palliation of painful bone metastases, with a pain response rate of more than 60%. However, shortly after treatment, in approximately 40% of patients a temporary pain flare occurs, which is defined as a two-point increase of the worst pain score on an 11-point rating scale compared to baseline, without a decrease in analgesic intake, or a 25% increase in analgesic intake without a decrease in worst pain score, compared to baseline. A pain flare has a negative impact on daily functioning and mood of patients. It is thought to be caused by periostial edema after radiotherapy. Dexamethasone might diminish this edema and thereby reduce the incidence of pain flare. Two non-randomized studies suggest that dexamethasone reduces the incidence of a pain flare by 50%. The aim of this trial is to study the effectiveness of dexamethasone to prevent a pain flare after palliative radiotherapy for painful bone metastases and to determine the optimal dose schedule.Methods and designThis study is a three-armed, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial. We aim to include 411 patients with uncomplicated painful bone metastases from any type of primary solid tumor who receive short schedule radiotherapy (all conventional treatment schedules from one to six fractions). Arm 1 consists of daily placebo for four days, arm 2 starts with 8 mg dexamethasone before the (first) radiotherapy and three days placebo thereafter. Arm 3 consists of four days 8 mg dexamethasone. The primary endpoint is the occurrence of a pain flare. Secondary endpoints are pain, quality of life and side-effects of dexamethasone versus placebo. Patients complete a questionnaire (Brief Pain Inventory with two added questions about side-effects of medication, the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL and QLQ-BM22 for quality of life) at baseline, daily for two weeks and lastly at four weeks.DiscussionThis study will show whether dexamethasone is effective in preventing a pain flare after palliative radiotherapy for painful bone metastases and, if so, to determine the optimal dose.Trial registrationThis study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01669499.

Project description:Background: There is an increasing need for evidence-based efficiency in providing a growing amount of cancer care. One example of a quality gap is the use of multiple-fraction palliative radiation for patients with advanced cancer who have uncomplicated bone metastases; evidence suggests similar pain outcomes for treatment regimens with a lower burden of treatments. Methods: During the first phase of quality improvement work, we used RAND/UCLA appropriateness methodology to understand how radiation oncologists at one academic medical center rate the appropriateness of different treatment regimens for painful uncomplicated bone metastases. We compared radiation oncologist appropriateness ratings for radiation treatments with radiation therapy provided by these oncologists to patients with painful bone metastases between July 2012 and June 2013. Results: Appropriateness ratings showed that single-fraction (8 Gy) treatment (a low burden treatment) was consistently considered an appropriate option to treat a variety of uncomplicated bone metastases. The use of >10 fractions was consistently rated as inappropriate regardless of other factors. Eighty-one patients receiving radiation therapy for painful bone metastases during the study period had an available medical record for chart abstraction. Almost one-third of metastases were considered complicated because of a concern of spinal cord compression, a history of prior irradiation, or an associated pathological fracture. Among uncomplicated bone metastases, 25% were treated with stereotactic body radiation treatment (SBRT). Among the 54 uncomplicated bone metastases treated with conformal radiation, only one was treated with single-fraction treatment and 32% were treated with greater than 10 fractions. Conclusions: Treatment at the study site demonstrates room for improvement in providing low-burden radiation oncology treatments for patients with painful bone metastases. Choosing a radiation treatment schedule for patients with advanced cancer and painful bone metastases requires consideration of many medical and patient-centered factors. Our experience suggests that it will take more than the existence of guidelines to change practice in this area.

Project description:IntroductionMagnetic Resonance Image-guided High Intensity Focused Ultrasound (MR-HIFU) is a non-invasive treatment option for palliative patients with painful bone metastases. Early evidence suggests that MR-HIFU is associated with similar overall treatment response, but more rapid pain palliation compared to external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). This modelling study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of MR-HIFU as an alternative treatment option for painful bone metastases from the perspective of the German Statutory Health Insurance (SHI).Materials and methodsA microsimulation model with lifelong time horizon and one-month cycle length was developed. To calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), strategy A (MR-HIFU as first-line treatment or as retreatment option in case of persistent pain or only partial pain relief after EBRT) was compared to strategy B (EBRT alone) for patients with bone metastases due to breast, prostate, or lung cancer. Input parameters used for the model were extracted from the literature. Results were expressed as EUR per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and EUR per pain response (i.e., months spent with complete or partial pain response). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to test the robustness of results, and a value of information analysis was conducted.ResultsCompared to strategy B, strategy A resulted in additional costs (EUR 399) and benefits (0.02 QALYs and 0.95 months with pain response). In the base case, the resulting ICERs (strategy A vs. strategy B) are EUR 19,845/QALY and EUR 421 per pain response. Offering all patients MR-HIFU as first-line treatment would increase the ICER by 50% (31,048 EUR/QALY). PSA showed that at a (hypothetical) willingness to pay of EUR 20,000/QALY, the probability of MR-HIFU being cost-effective was 52%. The expected value of perfect information (EVPI) for the benefit population in Germany is approximately EUR 190 Mio.ConclusionAlthough there is considerable uncertainty, the results demonstrate that introducing MR-HIFU as a treatment alternative for painful bone metastases might be cost-effective for the German SHI. The high EVPI indicate that further studies to reduce uncertainty would be worthwhile.