ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: This study aims to assess the clinical outcomes of patients with spine metastases who underwent stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) as part of their treatment. SABR has arisen as a contemporary treatment option for spinal metastasis patients with good prognoses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between November 2010 and September 2018, Spinal SABR was performed in patients with metastatic disease in different settings: radical (SABR only), postoperative (after decompression and/or fixation surgery), and reirradiation. Local control (LC), pain control, overall survival (OS) and toxicities were reported. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients (corresponding to 96 treatments) with spine metastases were included. The median age was 59 years (range, 23-91). In most SA BR (82.3%, n = 79) was performed as the first local spine treatment, while in 12 settings (12.5%), fixation and/or decompression surgery was performed prior to SABR. Two-year overall survival rate was 74.1%, and median survival was 19 months. The LC rate at 2 years was 72.3%. With regard to pain control, among 67 patients presenting with pain before SA BR, 83.3% had a complete response, 12.1% had a partial response, and 4.6% had progression. Vertebral compression fractures occurred in 10 patients (11.7%), of which 5 cases occurred in the reirradiation setting. Radiculopathy and myelopathy were not observed. No grade III or IV toxicities were seen. CONCLUSION: This is the first study presenting a Brazilian experience with spinal SA BR, and the results confirm its feasibility and safety. SABR was shown to produce good local and pain control rates with low rates of adverse events.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: We aim to assess any association between study and self-reported conflict of interest (COI) or trial sponsorship in breast cancer radiation clinical trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed for all clinical trials (CTs) published between 09/2004 and 09/2014 related to breast cancer. We included only radiotherapy CTs with primary clinical endpoints. We classified eligible trials according to the funding source, presence or absence of conflict of interest, study conclusion and impact factor (IF). RESULTS: 1,603 CTs were retrieved. 72 randomized clinical trials were included for analysis. For-profit (PO), not for profit organization (nPO), none and not reported sponsorship rates were 9/72 (12.5%), 35/72 (48.6%), 1/72 (1.4%), 27/72 (37.5%), respectively. Present, absent or not reported COI were found in 6/72 (8.3%), 43/72 (59.7%) and 23/72 (32%) of the CTs, respectively. Conclusion was positive, neutral and negative in 57/72 (79.1%), 9/72 (12.5%) and 6/72 (8.4%) of the trials, respectively. Positive conclusion was reported in 33/44 (75%) funded trials (PO and nPO) and 5/6 (83.3%) CTs with reported COI. On univariate analysis no association with funding source (P=0.178), COI (P=0.678) or trial region (P=0.567) and trial positive conclusion was found. Sponsored trials (HR 4.50, 95CI-0.1.23-16.53;P=0.0023) and positive trials (HR 4.78, 95CI- 1.16-19.63;P=0.030) were more likely to be published in higher impact factor journals in the multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: nPO funding was reported in almost 50% of the evaluated CTs. No significant association between study conclusion and funding source, COI or trial region was identified. Sponsored trials and positive trials were more likely to be published in higher impact factor journals.
