PURPOSE: Although the effectiveness of external beam irradiation in palliation of pain from osseous metastases is well established, the optimal fractionation schedule has not been determined. Clinical studies to date have failed to demonstrate an advantage for higher doses. To further address this issue, we conducted a pooled dose response analysis using data from published Phase III clinical trials. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Complete response (CR) was used as an endpoint because it was felt to be least susceptible to inconsistencies in assessment.The biological effective dose (BED) was calculated for each schedule using the linear-quadratic model and an alpha/beta of 10. Using SAS version 6.12, the data were fitted using a weighted linear regression, a logistic model, and the spline technique. Finally, BED was categorized, and odds ratios for each level were calculated. RESULTS: CR was assessed early and late in 383 and 1,007 patients, respectively. Linear regression on the early-response data yielded a poor fit and a nonsignificant dose coefficient. With the late-response data, there was an excellent fit (R-square = 0.842) and a highly significant dose coefficient (p = 0.0002). Fitting early CR to a logistic model, we could not establish a significant dose response relationship. However, with the late-response data there was an excellent fit and the dose coefficient was significantly different from zero (0.017 +/- 0.00524; p = 0.0012). Application of the spline technique or removal of an outlier resulted in an improved fit (p = 0.048 and p = 0.0001, respectively). Using BED of < 14.4 Gy as a reference level, the odds ratios for late CR were 2.29-3.32 (BED of 19.5-51.4 Gy, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate a clear dose-response for pain relief. Further testing of high intensity regiments is warranted.
PURPOSE: Although the effectiveness of external beam irradiation in palliation of pain from osseous metastases is well established, the optimal fractionation schedule has not been determined. Clinical studies to date have failed to demonstrate an advantage for higher doses. To further address this issue, we conducted a pooled dose response analysis using data from published Phase III clinical trials. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Complete response (CR) was used as an endpoint because it was felt to be least susceptible to inconsistencies in assessment.The biological effective dose (BED) was calculated for each schedule using the linear-quadratic model and an alpha/beta of 10. Using SAS version 6.12, the data were fitted using a weighted linear regression, a logistic model, and the spline technique. Finally, BED was categorized, and odds ratios for each level were calculated. RESULTS:CR was assessed early and late in 383 and 1,007 patients, respectively. Linear regression on the early-response data yielded a poor fit and a nonsignificant dose coefficient. With the late-response data, there was an excellent fit (R-square = 0.842) and a highly significant dose coefficient (p = 0.0002). Fitting early CR to a logistic model, we could not establish a significant dose response relationship. However, with the late-response data there was an excellent fit and the dose coefficient was significantly different from zero (0.017 +/- 0.00524; p = 0.0012). Application of the spline technique or removal of an outlier resulted in an improved fit (p = 0.048 and p = 0.0001, respectively). Using BED of < 14.4 Gy as a reference level, the odds ratios for late CR were 2.29-3.32 (BED of 19.5-51.4 Gy, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate a clear dose-response for pain relief. Further testing of high intensity regiments is warranted.
Authors: Nicolas Magné; Cyrus Chargari; René Olivier Mirimanoff; Pierre Olivier; Jean Philippe Vuillez; Michèle Tubiana-Hulin; Jean Jacques Body; Jean Léon Lagrange Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2010-08-31 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Benjamin W Fischer-Valuck; Brian C Baumann; Anthony Apicelli; Yuan James Rao; Michael Roach; Mackenzie Daly; Maria C Dans; Patrick White; Jessika Contreras; Lauren Henke; Hiram Gay; Jeff M Michalski; Christopher Abraham Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2018-08-17 Impact factor: 4.452