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/)

Stereotactic Body and Conventional Radiotherapy for Painful Bone Metastases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

IMPORTANCE: Conventional external beam radiotherapy (cEBRT) and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) are commonly used treatment options for relieving metastatic bone pain. The effectiveness of SBRT compared with cEBRT in pain relief has been a subject of debate, and conflicting results have been reported. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness associated with SBRT vs cEBRT for relieving metastatic bone pain. DATA SOURCES: A structured search was performed in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases on June 5, 2023. Additionally, results were added from a new randomized clinical trial (RCT) and additional unpublished data from an already published RCT. STUDY SELECTION: Comparative studies reporting pain response after SBRT vs cEBRT in patients with painful bone metastases. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted data from eligible studies. Data were extracted for the intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) populations. The study is reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Overall and complete pain response at 1, 3, and 6 months after radiotherapy, according to the study's definition. Relative risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs were calculated for each study. A random-effects model using a restricted maximum likelihood estimator was applied for meta-analysis. RESULTS: There were 18 studies with 1685 patients included in the systematic review and 8 RCTs with 1090 patients were included in the meta-analysis. In 7 RCTs, overall pain response was defined according to the International Consensus on Palliative Radiotherapy Endpoints in clinical trials (ICPRE). The complete pain response was reported in 6 RCTs, all defined according to the ICPRE. The ITT meta-analyses showed that the overall pain response rates did not differ between cEBRT and SBRT at 1 (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.99-1.30), 3 (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.96-1.47), or 6 (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.96-1.54) months. However, SBRT was associated with a higher complete pain response at 1 (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.02-2.01), 3 (RR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.16-2.78), and 6 (RR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.24-4.91) months after radiotherapy. The PP meta-analyses showed comparable results. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, patients with painful bone metastases experienced similar overall pain response after SBRT compared with cEBRT. More patients had complete pain alleviation after SBRT, suggesting that selected subgroups will benefit from SBRT

Pain Response After Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Versus Conventional Radiation Therapy in Patients With Bone Metastases-A Phase 2 Randomized Controlled Trial Within a Prospective Cohort

PURPOSE: Pain response after conventional external beam radiation therapy (cRT) in patients with painful bone metastases is observed in 60% to 70% of patients. The aim of the VERTICAL trial was to investigate whether stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) improves pain response. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This single-center, phase 2, randomized controlled trial was conducted within the PRESENT cohort, which consists of patients referred for radiation therapy of bone metastases to our tertiary center. Cohort participants with painful bone metastases who gave broad informed consent for randomization were randomly assigned to cRT or SBRT. Only patients in the intervention arm received information about the trial and were offered SBRT (1 × 18 Gy, 3 × 10 Gy, or 5 × 7 Gy), which they could accept or refuse. Patients who refused SBRT underwent standard cRT (1 × 8 Gy, 5 × 4 Gy, or 10 × 3 Gy). Patients in the control arm were not informed. Primary endpoint was pain response at 3 months after radiation therapy. Secondary outcomes were pain response at any point within 3 months, mean pain scores, and toxicity. Data were analyzed intention to treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP). This trial was registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02364115. RESULTS: Between January 29, 2015, and March 20, 2019, 110 patients were randomized. ITT analysis included 44 patients in the cRT arm and 45 patients in the SBRT arm. In the intervention arm, 12 patients (27%) declined SBRT, and 7 patients (16%) were unable to complete the SBRT treatment. In ITT, 14 of 44 patients (32%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 18%-45%) in the control arm and 18 of 45 patients (40%; 95% CI, 26%-54%) in the SBRT arm reported a pain response at 3 months (P = .42). In PP, these proportions were 14 of 44 (32%; 95% CI, 18%-45%) and 12 of 23 patients (46%; 95% CI, 27%-66%), respectively (P = .55). In ITT, a pain response within 3 months was reported by 30 of 44 control patients (82%; 95% CI, 68%-90%) and 38 of 45 patients (84%; 95% CI, 71%-92%) in the SBRT arm (P = .12). In PP, these proportions were 36 of 44 (82%; 95% CI, 68%-90%) and 26 of 27 patients (96%; 95% CI; 81%-100%), respectively (P = .12). No grade 3 or 4 toxicity was observed in either arm. CONCLUSIONS: SBRT did not significantly improve pain response in patients with painful bone metastases. One in 4 patients preferred to undergo cRT over SBRT, and 1 in 5 patients starting SBRT was unable to complete this treatment. Because of this selective dropout, which can be attributed to the character of the intervention, the trial was underpowered to detect the prespecified difference in pain response

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

Patient-Reported Outcomes of Oligometastatic Patients After Conventional or Stereotactic Radiation Therapy to Bone Metastases: An Analysis of the PRESENT Cohort

PURPOSE: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has become a widely adopted treatment for patients with oligometastatic disease, despite limited evidence of superiority. We compared pain response and quality of life (QoL) in patients with oligometastatic disease treated with conventionally fractionated 3-dimensional radiation therapy (3DCRT) or SBRT to bone metastases. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We included patients with oligometastatic disease (≤5 lesions within ≤3 organs) treated within the prospective PRESENT cohort. Main outcomes were pain response, clinical local control, and QoL 2, 4, and 8 weeks and 3, 6, and 12 months after treatment. Pain response was assessed only in patients who reported pain at baseline and was defined according to international consensus criteria. RESULTS: Of 131 patients with oligometastatic disease, 66 patients were treated with 3DCRT and 65 patients with SBRT. A pain response was achieved in 81% (3DCRT) versus 84% (SBRT) with a median duration of 23 weeks (range, 1-58) and 24 weeks (range, 0-50), respectively. Reirradiation was needed in 33% versus 5% of the patients, respectively. None of the QoL subscales were significantly different between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with oligometastatic disease, SBRT to bone metastases did not improve pain response or QoL compared with 3DCRT. Reirradiation was less often needed in the SBRT group

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