INTRODUCTION: Since the 1980s, randomized clinical trials showed that single fraction radiotherapy (RT) provided equal pain relief as multiple fractions of RT in the treatment of bone metastases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using Medline, a literature search was conducted on patterns of practice among radiation oncologists and patients' preferences of dose fractionations for the treatment of bone metastases. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Fifteen studies on international patterns of practice published between 1966 and May 2006 were identified. Surveys of Canadian radiation oncologists indicated approximately 85% preferred multiple fractions, most often as 20 Gray in five fractions (20 Gy/5). Surveys in the United States indicated that 30 Gy/10 was most commonly used, and 90-100% of these oncologists preferred multiple over single fraction RT. Multiple fractions were most commonly used in the United Kingdom, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand, and India; however, more radiation oncologists in these countries would prescribe a single fraction than in North America. Three studies investigated patients' preferences of dose fractionations. In the Australian study, most patients favored single fraction RT as long as long-term outcomes were not compromised. Durability of pain relief was considered more important than short-term convenience factors. In the Singapore study, 85% of patients would choose extended courses of RT (24 Gy/6) compared to a single 8 Gy. In the Canadian study, most patients (76%) would choose a single 8 Gy over 20 Gy/5 of palliative RT due to greater convenience. CONCLUSION: Despite strong evidence supporting the use of single fraction RT, current practices and preferences favor multiple fractions for the treatment of bone metastases. This has significant implications for the overall quality of life, RT department workload, costs to healthcare systems, and patient convenience.
INTRODUCTION: Since the 1980s, randomized clinical trials showed that single fraction radiotherapy (RT) provided equal pain relief as multiple fractions of RT in the treatment of bone metastases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using Medline, a literature search was conducted on patterns of practice among radiation oncologists and patients' preferences of dose fractionations for the treatment of bone metastases. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Fifteen studies on international patterns of practice published between 1966 and May 2006 were identified. Surveys of Canadian radiation oncologists indicated approximately 85% preferred multiple fractions, most often as 20 Gray in five fractions (20 Gy/5). Surveys in the United States indicated that 30 Gy/10 was most commonly used, and 90-100% of these oncologists preferred multiple over single fraction RT. Multiple fractions were most commonly used in the United Kingdom, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand, and India; however, more radiation oncologists in these countries would prescribe a single fraction than in North America. Three studies investigated patients' preferences of dose fractionations. In the Australian study, most patients favored single fraction RT as long as long-term outcomes were not compromised. Durability of pain relief was considered more important than short-term convenience factors. In the Singapore study, 85% of patients would choose extended courses of RT (24 Gy/6) compared to a single 8 Gy. In the Canadian study, most patients (76%) would choose a single 8 Gy over 20 Gy/5 of palliative RT due to greater convenience. CONCLUSION: Despite strong evidence supporting the use of single fraction RT, current practices and preferences favor multiple fractions for the treatment of bone metastases. This has significant implications for the overall quality of life, RT department workload, costs to healthcare systems, and patient convenience.
Authors: E Steenland; J W Leer; H van Houwelingen; W J Post; W B van den Hout; J Kievit; H de Haes; H Martijn; B Oei; E Vonk; E van der Steen-Banasik; R G Wiggenraad; J Hoogenhout; C Wárlám-Rodenhuis; G van Tienhoven; R Wanders; J Pomp; M van Reijn; I van Mierlo; E Rutten; J Leer; T van Mierlo Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 1999-08 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: William F Hartsell; Charles B Scott; Deborah Watkins Bruner; Charles W Scarantino; Robert A Ivker; Mack Roach; John H Suh; William F Demas; Benjamin Movsas; Ivy A Petersen; Andre A Konski; Charles S Cleeland; Nora A Janjan; Michelle DeSilvio Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-06-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: E Chow; C Danjoux; R Wong; E Szumacher; E Franssen; K Fung; J Finkelstein; L Andersson; R Connolly Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Jackson Sai-Yiu Wu; Rebecca K S Wong; Nancy S Lloyd; Mary Johnston; Andrea Bezjak; Timothy Whelan Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2004-10-04 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Yoonsun Chung; Woong Sub Koom; Yong Chan Ahn; Hee-Chul Park; Hak Jae Kim; Sang Min Yoon; Sangjin Shin; Yoon Jae Lee Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2013-10-10 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Aileen B Chen; Angel Cronin; Jane C Weeks; Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Jennifer Malin; James A Hayman; Deborah Schrag Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-01-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Julie R Gralow; J Sybil Biermann; Azeez Farooki; Monica N Fornier; Robert F Gagel; Rashmi N Kumar; Charles L Shapiro; Andrew Shields; Matthew R Smith; Sandy Srinivas; Catherine H Van Poznak Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Jean-Jacques Body; João Pereira; Harm Sleeboom; Nikos Maniadakis; Evangelos Terpos; Yves Pascal Acklin; Jindrich Finek; Oliver Gunther; Guy Hechmati; Tony Mossman; Luis Costa; Wojciech Rogowski; Hareth Nahi; Roger von Moos Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2015-08-08