Endovascular brachytherapy for renal artery in-stent restenosis.

OBJECTIVE: Renal artery in-stent restenosis (RAISR) is not an infrequent occurrence and may be in part responsible for the failure of renal stents to improve clinical outcome. A variety of treatments have been used to restore patency, with mixed results. These include repeated percutaneous transluminal renal angioplasty (PTRA), repeated PTRA with bare-metal stents, and repeated PTRA with drug-eluting stents or covered stents. Endovascular brachytherapy (EVBT) has been proven effective in preventing recurrent neointimal hyperplasia in coronary bare-metal stents. This prompted our group to study the effect of EVBT on RAISR. METHODS: From 2004 to 2012, 21 patients (23 renal arteries) developed RAISR ≤ 30 months after the initial procedure and were subsequently treated with EVBT. Five patients had at least one prior PTRA for recurrent restenosis. Renal artery duplex scanning was performed as a baseline study within a few days of the EVBT and then every 6 months. All patients who had EVBT were concurrently treated by PTRA and EVBT on the basis of existing protocols. Patency of the treated stents was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier survival curves. RESULTS: The average onset of the original RAISR was 11 ± 9 months (range, 2-30 months; median, 8 months). The initial technical success of combined PTRA and EVBT was 100%. Mean follow-up was 44 ± 18 months (range, 14-84 months). Of five patients who had PTRA before EVBT, four were available for long-term follow-up. These four patients had a combined total number of five PTRAs before EVBT, with recurrent stenosis developing on average by 12 months. After EVBT, three stents were patent at 39, 48, and 65 months, and one stent restenosed at 42 months. This was the only patient in the entire series to develop restenosis after EVBT. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective experience with a relatively small number of patients undergoing concurrent EVBT/PTRA for recurrent stenosis in stents placed to treat atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis suggests that EVBT is safe and provides long-term freedom from recurrent stenosis.

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.

Palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases: an ASTRO evidence-based guideline.

PURPOSE: To present guidance for patients and physicians regarding the use of radiotherapy in the treatment of bone metastases according to current published evidence and complemented by expert opinion. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A systematic search of the National Library of Medicine's PubMed database between 1998 and 2009 yielded 4,287 candidate original research articles potentially applicable to radiotherapy for bone metastases. A Task Force composed of all authors synthesized the published evidence and reached a consensus regarding the recommendations contained herein. RESULTS: The Task Force concluded that external beam radiotherapy continues to be the mainstay for the treatment of pain and/or prevention of the morbidity caused by bone metastases. Various fractionation schedules can provide significant palliation of symptoms and/or prevent the morbidity of bone metastases. The evidence for the safety and efficacy of repeat treatment to previously irradiated areas of peripheral bone metastases for pain was derived from both prospective studies and retrospective data, and it can be safe and effective. The use of stereotactic body radiotherapy holds theoretical promise in the treatment of new or recurrent spine lesions, although the Task Force recommended that its use be limited to highly selected patients and preferably within a prospective trial. Surgical decompression and postoperative radiotherapy is recommended for spinal cord compression or spinal instability in highly selected patients with sufficient performance status and life expectancy. The use of bisphosphonates, radionuclides, vertebroplasty, and kyphoplasty for the treatment or prevention of cancer-related symptoms does not obviate the need for external beam radiotherapy in appropriate patients. CONCLUSIONS: Radiotherapy is a successful and time efficient method by which to palliate pain and/or prevent the morbidity of bone metastases. This Guideline reviews the available data to define its proper use and provide consensus views concerning contemporary controversies or unanswered questions that warrant prospective trial evaluation.