Stereotactic Radiotherapy Followed by Surgical Stabilization Within 24 h for Unstable Spinal Metastases; A Stage I/IIa Study According to the IDEAL Framework

Background: Routine treatment for unstable spinal metastases consists of surgical stabilization followed by external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) after a minimum of 1–2 weeks to allow for initial wound healing. Although routine treatment, there are several downsides. First, radiotherapy induced pain relief is delayed by the time interval required for wound healing. Second, EBRT often requires multiple hospital visits and only 60% of the patients experience pain relief. Third, spinal implants cause imaging artifacts hindering SBRT treatment planning and delivery. Reversing the order of surgery and radiotherapy, with dose sparing of the surgical area by SBRT, could overcome these disadvantages and by eliminating the interval between the two treatments, recovery, and palliation may occur earlier.Design: The safety of SBRT followed by surgical stabilization within 24 h for the treatment of unstable spinal metastases was investigated. Safety was evaluated using the Common-Toxicity-Criteria-Adverse-Events-4.0, with the occurrence of wound complications within 90-days being the primary concern.Results: Between June-2015 and January-2017, 13 patients underwent SBRT followed by surgical stabilization for unstable spinal metastases. The median time between SBRT and surgery was 17-h (IQR 5–19). None of the patients experienced wound complications. Improvements in pain and quality of life were observed over time for all patients.Conclusion: SBRT followed by surgical stabilization within 24 h for the treatment of unstable spinal metastases is safe. Palliation may be experienced earlier and with both treatments being performed in one hospital admission the treatment burden decreases

Oncology patients were found to understand and accept the Trials within Cohorts design

Background and Objective: The Trials within Cohorts design aims to reduce recruitment difficulties and disappointment bias in pragmatic trials. On cohort enrollment, broad informed consent for randomization is asked, after which cohort participants can be randomized to interventions or serve as controls without further notification. We evaluated patients' recollection, understanding, and acceptance of broad consent in a clinical oncology setting. Methods: We surveyed 610 patients with cancer participating in ongoing TwiCs; 482 patients (79%) responded, of which 312 patients shortly after cohort enrollment, 108 patients after randomization to an intervention (12-18 months after cohort enrollment), and a random sample of 62 cohort participants who had not been selected for interventions (1-6 months after cohort enrollment). Results: Shortly after providing cohort consent, 76% of patients (238/312) adequately remembered whether they had given broad consent for randomization. Of patients randomly offered interventions, 76% (82/108) remembered giving broad consent for randomization; 41% (44/108) understood they were randomly selected, 44% (48/108) were not interested in selection procedures, and 10% (11/108) did not understand selection was random. Among patients not selected for interventions, 42% (26/62) understood selection was random; 89% felt neutral regarding the scenario of "not being selected for an intervention while your data were being used in comparison with patients receiving interventions,"10% felt reassured (6/62) and 2% scared/insecure (2/62). Conclusion: Patients adequately remember giving broad consent for randomization shortly after cohort enrollment and after being offered an intervention, but recollection is lower in those never selected for interventions. Patients are acceptant of serving as control without further notifications. (c) 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Wervelmetastasen : Op tijd signaleren en multidisciplinair handelen

Early diagnosis of spinal metastases is essential. The neurological condition at the time of diagnosis determines functional outcome. Optimal treatment planning requires a multidisciplinary approach by the general practitioner, internist/oncologist/haematologist, radiotherapist, radiologist, neurologist and the spinal surgeon. Radiation therapy is the most common treatment for patients with spinal metastases. However, in specific cases, surgery or chemotherapy should be the primary treatment. We present three patients with spinal metastases: a 55-year-old woman with back pain and a history of breast cancer, a 71-year-old woman with instability of the spine requiring surgical stabilisation and a 68-year-old man with spinal localisation of multiple myeloma treated with systemic therapy. Their cases illustrate the early symptoms of spinal metastases, the role of spinal stability in treatment decisions and the role of systemic therapy in patients with spinal metastases or haematological tumours located in the spine. Recognising early symptoms and appropriate multidisciplinary treatment planning are essential in improving the functional outcome in patients with spinal metastases

Wervelmetastasen : Op tijd signaleren en multidisciplinair handelen

Early diagnosis of spinal metastases is essential. The neurological condition at the time of diagnosis determines functional outcome. Optimal treatment planning requires a multidisciplinary approach by the general practitioner, internist/oncologist/haematologist, radiotherapist, radiologist, neurologist and the spinal surgeon. Radiation therapy is the most common treatment for patients with spinal metastases. However, in specific cases, surgery or chemotherapy should be the primary treatment. We present three patients with spinal metastases: a 55-year-old woman with back pain and a history of breast cancer, a 71-year-old woman with instability of the spine requiring surgical stabilisation and a 68-year-old man with spinal localisation of multiple myeloma treated with systemic therapy. Their cases illustrate the early symptoms of spinal metastases, the role of spinal stability in treatment decisions and the role of systemic therapy in patients with spinal metastases or haematological tumours located in the spine. Recognising early symptoms and appropriate multidisciplinary treatment planning are essential in improving the functional outcome in patients with spinal metastases

GTV delineation in supraglottic laryngeal carcinoma : interobserver agreement of CT versus CT-MR delineation

Background: GTV delineation is the first crucial step in radiotherapy and requires high accuracy, especially with the growing use of highly conformal and adaptive radiotherapy techniques. If GTV delineations of observers concord, they are considered to be of high accuracy. The aim of the study is to determine the interobserver agreement for GTV delineations of supraglottic laryngeal carcinoma on CT and on CT combined with MR-images and to determine the effect of adding MR images to CT-based delineation on the delineated volume and the interobserver agreement. Methods: Twenty patients with biopsy proven T1-T4 supraglottic laryngeal cancer, treated with curative intent were included. For all patients a contrast enhanced planning CT and a 1.5-T MRI with gadolinium were acquired in the same head-and-shoulder mask for fixation as used during treatment. For MRI, a two element surface coil was used as a receiver coil. Three dedicated observers independently delineated the GTV on CT. After an interval of 2 weeks, a set of co-registered CT and MR-images was provided to delineate the GTV on CT. Common volumes (C) and encompassing volumes (E) were calculated and C/E ratios were determined for each pair of observers. The conformity index general (CIgen) was used to quantify the interobserver agreement. Results: In general, a large variation in interobserver agreement was found for CT (range: 0.29-0.77) as well as for CT-MR delineations (range: 0.17-0.80). The mean CIgen for CT (0.61) was larger compared to CT-MR (0.57) (p = 0.032). Mean GTV volume delineated on CT-MR (6.6 cm(3)) was larger compared to CT (5.6 cm(3)) (p = 0.002). Conclusion: Delineation on CT with co-registered MR-images resulted in a larger mean GTV volume and in a decrease in interobserver agreement compared to CT only delineation for supraglottic laryngeal carcinoma

GTV delineation in supraglottic laryngeal carcinoma : interobserver agreement of CT versus CT-MR delineation

Background: GTV delineation is the first crucial step in radiotherapy and requires high accuracy, especially with the growing use of highly conformal and adaptive radiotherapy techniques. If GTV delineations of observers concord, they are considered to be of high accuracy. The aim of the study is to determine the interobserver agreement for GTV delineations of supraglottic laryngeal carcinoma on CT and on CT combined with MR-images and to determine the effect of adding MR images to CT-based delineation on the delineated volume and the interobserver agreement. Methods: Twenty patients with biopsy proven T1-T4 supraglottic laryngeal cancer, treated with curative intent were included. For all patients a contrast enhanced planning CT and a 1.5-T MRI with gadolinium were acquired in the same head-and-shoulder mask for fixation as used during treatment. For MRI, a two element surface coil was used as a receiver coil. Three dedicated observers independently delineated the GTV on CT. After an interval of 2 weeks, a set of co-registered CT and MR-images was provided to delineate the GTV on CT. Common volumes (C) and encompassing volumes (E) were calculated and C/E ratios were determined for each pair of observers. The conformity index general (CIgen) was used to quantify the interobserver agreement. Results: In general, a large variation in interobserver agreement was found for CT (range: 0.29-0.77) as well as for CT-MR delineations (range: 0.17-0.80). The mean CIgen for CT (0.61) was larger compared to CT-MR (0.57) (p = 0.032). Mean GTV volume delineated on CT-MR (6.6 cm(3)) was larger compared to CT (5.6 cm(3)) (p = 0.002). Conclusion: Delineation on CT with co-registered MR-images resulted in a larger mean GTV volume and in a decrease in interobserver agreement compared to CT only delineation for supraglottic laryngeal carcinoma

Stereotactic Radiotherapy Followed by Surgical Stabilization Within 24 h for Unstable Spinal Metastases; A Stage I/IIa Study According to the IDEAL Framework

Background: Routine treatment for unstable spinal metastases consists of surgical stabilization followed by external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) after a minimum of 1-2 weeks to allow for initial wound healing. Although routine treatment, there are several downsides. First, radiotherapy induced pain relief is delayed by the time interval required for wound healing. Second, EBRT often requires multiple hospital visits and only 60% of the patients experience pain relief. Third, spinal implants cause imaging artifacts hindering SBRT treatment planning and delivery. Reversing the order of surgery and radiotherapy, with dose sparing of the surgical area by SBRT, could overcome these disadvantages and by eliminating the interval between the two treatments, recovery, and palliation may occur earlier. Design: The safety of SBRT followed by surgical stabilization within 24 h for the treatment of unstable spinal metastases was investigated. Safety was evaluated using the Common-Toxicity-Criteria-Adverse-Events-4.0, with the occurrence of wound complications within 90-days being the primary concern. Results: Between June-2015 and January-2017, 13 patients underwent SBRT followed by surgical stabilization for unstable spinal metastases. The median time between SBRT and surgery was 17-h (IQR 5-19). None of the patients experienced wound complications. Improvements in pain and quality of life were observed over time for all patients. Conclusion: SBRT followed by surgical stabilization within 24 h for the treatment of unstable spinal metastases is safe. Palliation may be experienced earlier and with both treatments being performed in one hospital admission the treatment burden decreases

Comparing conVEntional RadioTherapy with stereotactIC body radiotherapy in patients with spinAL metastases : study protocol for an randomized controlled trial following the cohort multiple randomized controlled trial design

BACKGROUND: Standard radiotherapy is the treatment of first choice in patients with symptomatic spinal metastases, but is only moderately effective. Stereotactic body radiation therapy is increasingly used to treat spinal metastases, without randomized evidence of superiority over standard radiotherapy. The VERTICAL study aims to quantify the effect of stereotactic radiation therapy in patients with metastatic spinal disease. METHODS/DESIGN: This study follows the 'cohort multiple Randomized Controlled Trial' design. The VERTICAL study is conducted within the PRESENT cohort. In PRESENT, all patients with bone metastases referred for radiation therapy are enrolled. For each patient, clinical and patient-reported outcomes are captured at baseline and at regular intervals during follow-up. In addition, patients give informed consent to be offered experimental interventions. Within PRESENT, 110 patients are identified as a sub cohort of eligible patients (i.e. patients with unirradiated painful, mechanically stable spinal metastases who are able to undergo stereotactic radiation therapy). After a protocol amendment, also patients with non-spinal bony metastases are eligible. From the sub cohort, a random selection of patients is offered stereotactic radiation therapy (n = 55), which patients may accept or refuse. Only patients accepting stereotactic radiation therapy sign informed consent for the VERTICAL trial. Non-selected patients (n = 55) receive standard radiotherapy, and are not aware of them serving as controls. Primary endpoint is pain response after three months. Data will be analyzed by intention to treat, complemented by instrumental variable analysis in case of substantial refusal of the stereotactic radiation therapy in the intervention arm. DISCUSSION: This study is designed to quantify the treatment response after (stereotactic) radiation therapy in patients with symptomatic spinal metastases. This is the first randomized study in palliative care following the cohort multiple Randomized Controlled Trial design. This design addresses common difficulties associated with classic pragmatic randomized controlled trials, such as disappointment bias in patients allocated to the control arm, slow recruitment, and poor generalizability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Netherlands Trials Register number NL49316.041.14. ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT02364115 . Date of trial registration February 1, 2015

Modality-specific target definition for laryngeal and hypopharyngeal cancer on FDG-PET, CT and MRI

Background and purpose: The goal of this study was to improve target definition by deriving modality-specific margins for clinical target volumes (CTV) for laryngeal and hypopharyngeal cancer on CT, MRI and 18-FDG-PET. Material and methods: Twenty-five patients with T3/T4 laryngeal/hypopharyngeal cancer underwent CT, MRI and 18-FDG-PET scans before laryngectomy. HE-sections were obtained from the surgical specimen and tumor was delineated (tumorHE). The GTVs on CT and MRI were delineated in consensus. PET-based GTVs were automatically segmented. The three-dimensionally reconstructed specimen was registered to the various images. Modality-specific CTV margins were derived and added to the GTVs to achieve adequate tumor coverage. The resulting CTVs were compared with each other, to tumorHE, and to CTVCT10 constructed on CT with the clinical margin of 10mm. Results: CTV margins of 4.3mm (CT), 6.1mm (MRI) and 5.2mm (PET) were needed to achieve adequate tumor coverage. The median volumes of the resulting modality-specific CTVs were 44ml (CT), 48ml (MRI) and 39ml (PET), while the CTV10mm was 80ml. Conclusion: For laryngohypopharyngeal tumors, 45-52% target volume reduction compared with CTV10mm is achievable when modality-specific CTV margins are used. PET-based CTVs were significantly smaller compared to CT- and MRI-based CTVs