Pub Date : 2024-11-01DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2024.07.011
Stephanie Yoon MD, MS, Andrew Tam MD, Yun Rose Li MD, PhD
{"title":"In Reply to Rivers et al.","authors":"Stephanie Yoon MD, MS, Andrew Tam MD, Yun Rose Li MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2024.07.011","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prro.2024.07.011","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":"14 6","pages":"Pages 605-607"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142551865","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-01DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2024.04.024
Abstract
This case presentation describes development of symptomatic radiation pneumonitis in a healthy woman who underwent partial breast irradiation with deep inspiration breath hold for early stage breast cancer meeting all published dose constraints. Risk factors for, diagnosis and management of radiation pneumonitis are discussed in detail. Radiation pneumonitis is rare, ranging from <1% to 1.5% (when regional nodal irradiation is included). Partial breast irradiation spares breast tissue, but may not spare lung tissue better than whole breast irradiation, depending upon treatment technique such as prone positioning. Dose constraints for normal and target structures from published trials are reviewed, however data specifically relating to pneumonitis in partial breast trials are limited.
{"title":"Radiation Pneumonitis After Partial Breast Irradiation","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2024.04.024","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prro.2024.04.024","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Abstract</h3><div>This case presentation describes development of symptomatic radiation pneumonitis<span> in a healthy woman who underwent partial breast irradiation<span> with deep inspiration breath hold for early stage breast cancer meeting all published dose constraints. Risk factors for, diagnosis and management of radiation pneumonitis are discussed in detail. Radiation pneumonitis is rare, ranging from <1% to 1.5% (when regional nodal irradiation is included). Partial breast irradiation spares breast tissue, but may not spare lung tissue better than whole breast irradiation, depending upon treatment technique such as prone positioning. Dose constraints for normal and target structures from published trials are reviewed, however data specifically relating to pneumonitis in partial breast trials are limited.</span></span></div></div>","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":"14 6","pages":"Pages 478-483"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141201315","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-01DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2024.06.002
Purpose
Patients undergoing radiation therapy may terminate treatment for any number of reasons. The incidence of treatment termination (TT) during radiation therapy has not been studied. Herein, we present a cohort of TT at a large multicenter radiation oncology department over 10 years.
Methods and Materials
TTs between January 2013 and January 2023 were prospectively analyzed as part of an ongoing departmental quality and safety program. TT was defined as any premature discontinuation of therapy after initiating radiation planning. The rate of TT was calculated as a percentage of all patients starting radiation planning. All cases were presented at monthly morbidity and mortality conferences with a root cause reviewed.
Results
A total of 1448 TTs were identified out of 31,199 planned courses of care (4.6%). Six hundred eighty-six (47.4%) involved patients treated with curative intent, whereas 753 (52.0%) were treated with palliative intent, and 9 (0.6%) were treated for benign disease. The rate of TT decreased from 8.49% in 2013 to 3.02% in 2022, with rates decreasing yearly. The most common disease sites for TT were central nervous system (21.7%), head and neck (19.3%), thorax (17.5%), and bone (14.2%). The most common causes of TT were hospice and/or patient expiration (35.9%), patient choice unrelated to toxicity (35.2%), and clinician choice unrelated to toxicity (11.5%).
Conclusions
This 10-year prospective review of TTs identified a year-over-year decrease in TTs as a percentage of planned patients. This decrease may be associated with the addition of root cause reviews for TTs and discussions monthly at morbidity and mortality rounds, coupled with departmental upstream quality initiatives implemented over time. Understanding the reasons behind TTs may help decrease preventable TTs. Although some TTs may be unavoidable, open discourse and quality improvement changes effectively reduce TT incidents over time.
{"title":"Treatment Terminations During Radiation Therapy: A 10-Year Experience","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2024.06.002","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prro.2024.06.002","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>Patients undergoing radiation therapy may terminate treatment for any number of reasons. The incidence of treatment termination (TT) during radiation therapy has not been studied. Herein, we present a cohort of TT at a large multicenter radiation oncology department over 10 years.</div></div><div><h3>Methods and Materials</h3><div>TTs between January 2013 and January 2023 were prospectively analyzed as part of an ongoing departmental quality and safety program. TT was defined as any premature discontinuation of therapy after initiating radiation planning. The rate of TT was calculated as a percentage of all patients starting radiation planning. All cases were presented at monthly morbidity and mortality conferences with a root cause reviewed.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 1448 TTs were identified out of 31,199 planned courses of care (4.6%). Six hundred eighty-six (47.4%) involved patients treated with curative intent, whereas 753 (52.0%) were treated with palliative intent, and 9 (0.6%) were treated for benign disease<span>. The rate of TT decreased from 8.49% in 2013 to 3.02% in 2022, with rates decreasing yearly. The most common disease sites for TT were central nervous system<span> (21.7%), head and neck (19.3%), thorax (17.5%), and bone (14.2%). The most common causes of TT were hospice and/or patient expiration (35.9%), patient choice unrelated to toxicity (35.2%), and clinician choice unrelated to toxicity (11.5%).</span></span></div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>This 10-year prospective review of TTs identified a year-over-year decrease in TTs as a percentage of planned patients. This decrease may be associated with the addition of root cause reviews for TTs and discussions monthly at morbidity and mortality rounds, coupled with departmental upstream quality initiatives implemented over time. Understanding the reasons behind TTs may help decrease preventable TTs. Although some TTs may be unavoidable, open discourse and quality improvement changes effectively reduce TT incidents over time.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":"14 6","pages":"Pages e417-e425"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141555937","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-01DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2024.05.009
Purpose
The occurrence of genitourinary (GU) toxicity is a common adverse event observed after external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for prostate cancer (PCa). Recent findings suggest that the dose delivered to specific urinary organs at risk (OARs) such as the ureters, bladder trigone, and urethra is involved in the development of GU toxicity.
Methods and Materials
A multidisciplinary task force including 3 radiation oncologists, a uroradiologist, and a urologist was created in 2022. First, OARs potentially involved in GU toxicity were identified and discussed. A literature review was performed, addressing several questions relative to urinary OARs: anatomic and radiological definition, radiation-induced injury, and dose-volume parameters. Second, results were presented and discussed with a panel of radiation oncologists and members of the “Francophone Group of Urological Radiation Therapy.” Thereafter, the “Francophone Group of Urological Radiation Therapy” experts were asked to answer a dedicated questionnaire, including 35 questions on the controversial issues related to the delineation of urinary OARs.
Results
The following structures were identified as critical for PCa EBRT: ureters, bladder, bladder neck, bladder trigone, urethra (intraprostatic, membranous, and spongious), striated sphincter, and postenucleation or posttransurethral resection of the prostate cavity. A consensus was obtained for 32 out of 35 items.
Conclusions
This consensus highlights contemporary urinary structures in both the upper and lower urinary tract to be considered for EBRT treatment planning of PCa. The current recommendations also propose a standardized definition of urinary OARs for both daily practice and future clinical trials.
{"title":"Urinary Organs at Risk for Prostate Cancer External Beam Radiation Therapy: Contouring Guidelines on Behalf of the Francophone Group of Urological Radiation Therapy","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2024.05.009","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prro.2024.05.009","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>The occurrence of genitourinary (GU) toxicity is a common adverse event observed after external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for prostate cancer (PCa). Recent findings suggest that the dose delivered to specific urinary organs at risk (OARs) such as the ureters, bladder trigone, and urethra is involved in the development of GU toxicity.</div></div><div><h3>Methods and Materials</h3><div>A multidisciplinary task force including 3 radiation oncologists, a uroradiologist, and a urologist was created in 2022. First, OARs potentially involved in GU toxicity were identified and discussed. A literature review was performed, addressing several questions relative to urinary OARs: anatomic and radiological definition, radiation-induced injury, and dose-volume parameters. Second, results were presented and discussed with a panel of radiation oncologists and members of the “Francophone Group of Urological Radiation Therapy.” Thereafter, the “Francophone Group of Urological Radiation Therapy” experts were asked to answer a dedicated questionnaire, including 35 questions on the controversial issues related to the delineation of urinary OARs.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The following structures were identified as critical for PCa EBRT: ureters, bladder, bladder neck, bladder trigone, urethra (intraprostatic, membranous, and spongious), striated sphincter, and postenucleation or posttransurethral resection of the prostate cavity. A consensus was obtained for 32 out of 35 items.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>This consensus highlights contemporary urinary structures in both the upper and lower urinary tract to be considered for EBRT treatment planning of PCa. The current recommendations also propose a standardized definition of urinary OARs for both daily practice and future clinical trials.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":"14 6","pages":"Pages 541-554"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141581509","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-01DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2024.03.002
{"title":"Being an Oncologist—How I Evolved","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2024.03.002","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prro.2024.03.002","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":"14 6","pages":"Pages 476-477"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140208236","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-01DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2024.04.002
Although standardization has been shown to improve patient safety and improve the efficiency of workflows, implementation of standards can take considerable effort and requires the engagement of all clinical stakeholders. Engaging team members includes increasing awareness of the proposed benefit of the standard, a clear implementation plan, monitoring for improvements, and open communication to support successful implementation. The benefits of standardization often focus on large institutions to improve research endeavors, yet all clinics can benefit from standardization to increase quality and implement more efficient or automated workflow. The benefits of nomenclature standardization for all team members and institution sizes, including success stories, are discussed with practical implementation guides to facilitate the adoption of standardized nomenclature in radiation oncology.
{"title":"Order From Chaos: The Benefits of Standardized Nomenclature in Radiation Oncology","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2024.04.002","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prro.2024.04.002","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Although standardization has been shown to improve patient safety and improve the efficiency of workflows, implementation of standards can take considerable effort and requires the engagement of all clinical stakeholders. Engaging team members includes increasing awareness of the proposed benefit of the standard, a clear implementation plan, monitoring for improvements, and open communication to support successful implementation. The benefits of standardization often focus on large institutions to improve research endeavors, yet all clinics can benefit from standardization to increase quality and implement more efficient or automated workflow. The benefits of nomenclature standardization for all team members and institution sizes, including success stories, are discussed with practical implementation guides to facilitate the adoption of standardized nomenclature in radiation oncology.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":"14 6","pages":"Pages 582-589"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140791818","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-01DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2024.04.014
Purpose
Functional lung avoidance (FLA) radiation therapy is an evolving field. The aim of FLA planning is to reduce dose to areas of functioning lung, with comparable target coverage and dose to organs at risk. Multicriteria optimization (MCO) is a planning tool that may assist with FLA planning. This study assessed the feasibility of using MCO to adapt radiation therapy plans to avoid functional regions of lung that were identified using a 68Ga-4D-V/Q positron emission tomography/computed tomography.
Methods and Materials
A prospective clinical trial U1111-1138-4421 was performed in which patients had a 68Ga-4D-V/Q positron emission tomography/computed tomography before radiation treatment. Of the 72 patients enrolled in this trial, 38 patients had stage III non-small cell lung cancer and were eligible for selection into this planning study. Functional lung target volumes HF lung (highly functioning lung) and F lung (functional lung) were defined using the ventilated and perfused lung. Using knowledge-based planning, a baseline anatomic plan was created, and then a functional adapted plan was generated using multicriteria optimization. The primary aim was to spare dose to HF lung. Using the MCO tools, a clinician selected the final FLA plan. Dose to functional lung, target volumes, organs at risk and measures of plan quality were compared using standard statistical methods.
Results
The HF lung volume was successfully spared in all patients. The F lung volume was successfully spared in 36 of the 38 patients. There were no clinically significant differences in dose to anatomically defined organs at risk. There were differences in the planning target volume near maximum and minimum doses. Across the entire population, there was a statistically significant reduction in the functional mean lung dose but not in the functional volume receiving 20 Gy. All trade-off decisions were made by the clinician.
Conclusions
Using MCO for FLA was achievable but did result in changes to planning target volume coverage. A distinct advantage in using MCO was that all decisions regarding the cost and benefits of FLA could be made in real time.
{"title":"Functional Lung Avoidance Planning Using Multicriteria Optimization","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2024.04.014","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prro.2024.04.014","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>Functional lung avoidance (FLA) radiation therapy is an evolving field. The aim of FLA planning is to reduce dose to areas of functioning lung, with comparable target coverage and dose to organs at risk. Multicriteria optimization (MCO) is a planning tool that may assist with FLA planning. This study assessed the feasibility of using MCO to adapt radiation therapy plans to avoid functional regions of lung that were identified using a <sup>68</sup>Ga-4D-V/Q positron emission tomography/computed tomography.</div></div><div><h3>Methods and Materials</h3><div><span>A prospective clinical trial U1111-1138-4421 was performed in which patients had a </span><sup>68</sup>Ga-4D-V/Q positron emission tomography/computed tomography before radiation treatment. Of the 72 patients enrolled in this trial, 38 patients had stage III non-small cell lung cancer and were eligible for selection into this planning study. Functional lung target volumes HF lung (highly functioning lung) and F lung (functional lung) were defined using the ventilated and perfused lung. Using knowledge-based planning, a baseline anatomic plan was created, and then a functional adapted plan was generated using multicriteria optimization. The primary aim was to spare dose to HF lung. Using the MCO tools, a clinician selected the final FLA plan. Dose to functional lung, target volumes, organs at risk and measures of plan quality were compared using standard statistical methods.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The HF lung volume was successfully spared in all patients. The F lung volume was successfully spared in 36 of the 38 patients. There were no clinically significant differences in dose to anatomically defined organs at risk. There were differences in the planning target volume near maximum and minimum doses. Across the entire population, there was a statistically significant reduction in the functional mean lung dose but not in the functional volume receiving 20 Gy. All trade-off decisions were made by the clinician.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Using MCO for FLA was achievable but did result in changes to planning target volume coverage. A distinct advantage in using MCO was that all decisions regarding the cost and benefits of FLA could be made in real time.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":"14 6","pages":"Pages e480-e486"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140867516","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-01DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2024.05.005
Purpose
Particle therapy is a promising treatment technique that is becoming more commonly used. Although proton beam therapy remains the most commonly used particle therapy, multiple other heavier ions have been used in the preclinical and clinical settings, each with its own unique properties. This practical review aims to summarize the differences between the studied particles, discussing their radiobiological and physical properties with additional review of the available clinical data.
Methods and Materials
A search was carried out on the PubMed databases with search terms related to each particle. Relevant radiobiology, physics, and clinical studies were included. The articles were summarized to provide a practical resource for practicing clinicians.
Results
A total of 113 articles and texts were included in our narrative review. Currently, proton beam therapy has the most data and is the most widely used, followed by carbon, helium, and neutrons. Although oxygen, neon, silicon, and argon have been used clinically, their future use will likely remain limited as monotherapy.
Conclusions
This review summarizes the properties of each of the clinically relevant particles. Protons, helium, and carbon will likely remain the most commonly used, although multi-ion therapy is an emerging technique.
{"title":"A Practical Primer on Particle Therapy","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2024.05.005","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prro.2024.05.005","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div><span>Particle therapy is a promising treatment technique that is becoming more commonly used. Although </span>proton beam therapy<span> remains the most commonly used particle therapy, multiple other heavier ions have been used in the preclinical and clinical settings, each with its own unique properties. This practical review aims to summarize the differences between the studied particles, discussing their radiobiological and physical properties with additional review of the available clinical data.</span></div></div><div><h3>Methods and Materials</h3><div>A search was carried out on the PubMed databases with search terms related to each particle. Relevant radiobiology, physics, and clinical studies were included. The articles were summarized to provide a practical resource for practicing clinicians.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 113 articles and texts were included in our narrative review. Currently, proton beam therapy has the most data and is the most widely used, followed by carbon, helium, and neutrons. Although oxygen, neon, silicon, and argon have been used clinically, their future use will likely remain limited as monotherapy.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>This review summarizes the properties of each of the clinically relevant particles. Protons, helium, and carbon will likely remain the most commonly used, although multi-ion therapy is an emerging technique.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":"14 6","pages":"Pages 590-602"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141285328","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-01DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2024.06.005
Purpose
Recent randomized trials have compared the efficacy and safety of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) with those of standard conventional external beam radiation therapy (cEBRT) for the treatment of painful spinal metastases. We conducted a composite analysis of these trials in order to inform current practice using pooled outcomes.
Methods and Materials
Data from each randomized trial were abstracted from the final publications with biologically effective doses (BEDs) recalculated for SBRT and cEBRT. Primary outcome measures were overall pain response (OR) and complete pain response (CR) rates at 1, 3, and 6 months and rates of vertebral compression fracture. Random effects models were used to estimate primary outcome measures, and meta-regression assessed the effect of BED.
Results
Four prospective randomized clinical trials published between 2018 and 2024 were included, with a total of 686 patients (383 and 303 in the SBRT and cEBRT groups, respectively). Dose and fraction (fx) number ranged from 24 Gy/1 fx to 48.5 Gy/10 fx for the SBRT group (median BED using an α-to-β ratio of 10, 50 Gy) and from 8 Gy/1 fx to 30 Gy/10 fx for the cEBRT group (median BED using an α-to-β ratio of 10, 28 Gy). The 1-, 3-, and 6-month OR rates for SBRT and cEBRT were similar: 53.6%, 52.4%, and 58.8% versus 48.4%, 47.9%, and 43.8%, respectively (p > .05). The 3-month CR rate was significantly higher for SBRT than for cEBRT (31.9% vs 14.8%; risk ratio, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.48-3.45; p < .001), but not the 6-month rate (34.4% vs 16.3%; risk ratio, 1.83; 95% CI, 0.74-4.53; p = .194). Vertebral compression fracture rates were similar at 17.3% and 18.4% for SBRT and cEBRT, respectively. No significant dose-dependent effect was observed with increasing BED for any efficacy or safety outcomes.
Conclusions
OR rates are similar, but CR rates appear higher with SBRT than with cEBRT, yet no dose-dependent effects were identified despite approximately 1.8 × BED dose with SBRT.
{"title":"Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Versus Conventional Radiation Therapy for Painful Spinal Metastases: A Comparative Analysis of Randomized Trials and Practical Considerations","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.prro.2024.06.005","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prro.2024.06.005","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div><span>Recent randomized trials have compared the efficacy and safety of stereotactic body radiation therapy<span> (SBRT) with those of standard conventional external beam radiation therapy (cEBRT) for the treatment of painful </span></span>spinal metastases. We conducted a composite analysis of these trials in order to inform current practice using pooled outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Methods and Materials</h3><div><span>Data from each randomized trial were abstracted from the final publications with biologically effective doses (BEDs) recalculated for SBRT and cEBRT. Primary outcome measures were overall pain response (OR) and complete pain response (CR) rates at 1, 3, and 6 months and rates of vertebral </span>compression fracture. Random effects models were used to estimate primary outcome measures, and meta-regression assessed the effect of BED.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div><span>Four prospective randomized clinical trials published between 2018 and 2024 were included, with a total of 686 patients (383 and 303 in the SBRT and cEBRT groups, respectively). Dose and fraction (fx) number ranged from 24 Gy/1 fx to 48.5 Gy/10 fx for the SBRT group (median BED using an α-to-β ratio of 10, 50 Gy) and from 8 Gy/1 fx to 30 Gy/10 fx for the cEBRT group (median BED using an α-to-β ratio of 10, 28 Gy). The 1-, 3-, and 6-month OR rates for SBRT and cEBRT were similar: 53.6%, 52.4%, and 58.8% versus 48.4%, 47.9%, and 43.8%, respectively (</span><em>p</em> > .05). The 3-month CR rate was significantly higher for SBRT than for cEBRT (31.9% vs 14.8%; risk ratio, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.48-3.45; <em>p</em> < .001), but not the 6-month rate (34.4% vs 16.3%; risk ratio, 1.83; 95% CI, 0.74-4.53; <em>p</em><span> = .194). Vertebral compression fracture rates were similar at 17.3% and 18.4% for SBRT and cEBRT, respectively. No significant dose-dependent effect was observed with increasing BED for any efficacy or safety outcomes.</span></div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>OR rates are similar, but CR rates appear higher with SBRT than with cEBRT, yet no dose-dependent effects were identified despite approximately 1.8 × BED dose with SBRT.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54245,"journal":{"name":"Practical Radiation Oncology","volume":"14 6","pages":"Pages 512-521"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141560351","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号