Single-fraction radiotherapy versus multifraction radiotherapy for palliation of painful vertebral bone metastases-equivalent efficacy, less toxicity, more convenient: a subset analysis of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group trial 97-14.

BACKGROUND: The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) trial 97-14 revealed no difference between radiation delivered for painful bone metastases at a dose of 8 gray (Gy) in 1 fraction (single-fraction radiotherapy [SFRT]) and 30 Gy in 10 fractions (multifraction radiotherapy [MFRT]) in pain relief or narcotic use 3 months after randomization. SFRT for painful vertebral bone metastases (PVBM) has not been well accepted, possibly because of concerns about efficacy and toxicity. In the current study, the authors evaluated the subset of patients that was treated specifically for patients with PVBM. METHODS: PVBM included the cervical, thoracic, and/or lumbar spine regions. Among patients with PVBM, differences in retreatment rates and in pain relief, narcotic use, and toxicity 3 months after randomization were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 909 eligible patients, 235 (26%) had PVBM. Patients with and without PVBM differed in terms of the percentage of men (55% vs 47%, respectively; P = .03) and the proportion of patients with multiple painful sites (57% vs 38%, respectively; P < .01). Among those with PVBM, more patients who received MFRT had multiple sites treated (65% vs 49% for MFRT vs SFRT, respectively; P = .02). There were no statistically significant treatment differences in terms of pain relief (62% vs 70% for MFRT vs SFRT, respectively; P = .59) or freedom from narcotic use (24% vs 27%, respectively; P = .76) at 3 months. Significant differences in acute grade 2 through 4 toxicity (20% vs 10% for MFRT vs SFRT, respectively; P = .01) and acute grade 2 through 4 gastrointestinal toxicity (14% vs 6%, respectively; P = .01) were observed at 3 months, with lower toxicities seen in the patients treated with SFRT. Late toxicity was rare. No myelopathy was recorded. SFRT produced higher 3-year retreatment rates (5% vs 15%; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Results for the subset of patients with PVBM in the RTOG 94-17 randomized controlled trial were comparable to those for the entire population. SFRT produced less acute toxicity and a higher rate of retreatment than MFRT. SFRT and MFRT resulted in comparable pain relief and narcotic use at 3 months.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria ® spinal bone metastases.

Abstract The spine is a common site of involvement in patients with bone metastases. Apart from pain, hypercalcemia, and pathologic fracture, progressive tumor can result in neurologic deterioration caused by spinal cord compression or cauda equina involvement. The treatment of spinal bone metastases depends on histology, site of disease, extent of epidural disease, extent of metastases elsewhere, and neurologic status. Treatment recommendations must weigh the risk-benefit profile of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for the particular individual's circumstance, including neurologic status, performance status, extent of spinal disease, stability of the spine, extra-spinal disease status, and life expectancy. Patients with spinal instability should be evaluated for surgical intervention. Research studies are needed that evaluate the combination or sequencing of localized therapies with systemic therapies including chemotherapy, hormonal therapy (HT), osteoclast inhibitors (OI), and radiopharmaceuticals. The roles of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in the management of spinal oligometastasis, radioresistant spinal metastasis, and previously irradiated but progressive spinal metastasis are emerging, but more research is needed to validate the findings from retrospective studies. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 2 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® non-spine bone metastases.

Bone is one of the most common sites of metastatic spread of malignancy, with possible deleterious effects including pain, hypercalcemia, and pathologic fracture. External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) remains the mainstay for treatment of painful bone metastases. EBRT may be combined with other local therapies like surgery or with systemic treatments like chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, osteoclast inhibitors, or radiopharmaceuticals. EBRT is not commonly recommended for patients with asymptomatic bone metastases unless they are associated with a risk of pathologic fracture. For those who do receive EBRT, appropriate fractionation schemes include 30 Gy in 10 fractions, 24 Gy in 6 fractions, 20 Gy in 5 fractions, or a single 8 Gy fraction. Single fraction treatment maximizes convenience, while fractionated treatment courses are associated with a lower incidence of retreatment. The appropriate postoperative dose fractionation following surgical stabilization is uncertain. Reirradiation with EBRT may be safe and provide pain relief, though retreatment might create side effect risks which warrant its use as part of a clinical trial. All patients with bone metastases should be considered for concurrent management by a palliative care team, with patients whose life expectancy is less than six months appropriate for hospice evaluation. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every two years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.

The role of radiation therapy in the palliation of gastrointestinal malignancies.

Radiation therapy can provide significant palliation in many patients who have unresectable, metastatic, or incurable malignancies of the gastrointestinal tract and is a modality that can be used in many clinical situations. In considering radiation therapy, the radiation oncologist should be mindful of the actual expectation of palliation, the potential degree of relief of symptoms, and the time involved for the patient and those involved in his or her care and transport. When a course of radiation is planned, the dose per fraction, total number of fractions, and total dose delivered should all be taken into account. The use of concurrent systemic chemotherapy needs to be reviewed with respect to chances for augmentation of palliation as well as morbidity. Although long-term disease control is often not achieved, there are reasonable expectations for control of symptoms of bleeding and pain. The side effects associated with radiation are generally well tolerated and, if they occur, usually can be controlled with conservative measures. Significant late effects, although uncommon, are generally a function of the volume of the organ treated, the total dose used, and whether systemic therapy is used in conjunction with radiation. When considering the options for palliation in these situations, multidisciplinary collaboration among all those involved in a patient's care, surgeon, radiation oncologist, medical oncologist, primary care provider, and palliative care specialist, is ideal to address each situation in each patient, for whom there may be a variety of options for palliative treatment. Generally, combinations of interventions are needed to optimize the palliation of a patient's various problems. The goal of providing relief to the patient in the least amount of time with the least amount of morbidity and the greatest expectation for durability of response is paramount.