Zachary D Epstein-Peterson1, Adam Sullivan2, Monica Krishnan3, Julie T Chen4, Marco Ferrone5, John Ready5, Elizabeth H Baldini6, Tracy Balboni7. 1. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. 7. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: TBalboni@lroc.harvard.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate patterns and predictors of local failure in patients undergoing postoperative radiation therapy (RT) for osseous metastases. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients undergoing postoperative RT for bone metastases between June 2008 and January 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. Patterns of local failure were assessed, and Fine and Gray's univariable and multivariable analyses (MVA) were used to evaluate factors associated with local progression, including dose intensity of RT (biological equivalent dose, BED, Gy10) and percent coverage of the surgical hardware by the RT fields. Additional predictors were similarly assessed, including patient (eg, age, performance status), disease (eg, tumor type, metastasis site), and treatment (eg, interval from surgery to RT) characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 82 cases were followed for a median of 4.3 months (11.5 months among living patients) after treatment completion. Median BED was 39 Gy10 (range, 14-60), and RT fields covered an average of 71% (standard deviation, 26%) of the hardware. Fourteen cases (17%) experienced local progression. Although most (71%) failures occurred within the RT fields, 29% occurred marginally or out of field, but adjacent to surgical hardware. Increasing coverage of the surgical hardware by RT fields was associated with a reduced risk of local failure in MVA (hazard ratio [HR], 0.10; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.012-0.82; P = .03), whereas a greater risk of failure was seen with increasing time between surgery and RT (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06; P = .01). Extremity rather than spinal site trended toward a greater risk of failure but did not reach significance (HR, 3.79; 95% CI, 0.96-14.89; P = .057). BED ≥39 Gy10 did not predict local failure (P = .51) in MVA. CONCLUSIONS: Current strategies achieve good outcomes after postoperative RT for osseous metastases. Greater coverage of the surgical hardware with RT fields and avoiding delays between surgery and postoperative RT should be considered to reduce recurrence risk for patients with bone metastases requiring surgical stabilization.
PURPOSE: To evaluate patterns and predictors of local failure in patients undergoing postoperative radiation therapy (RT) for osseous metastases. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients undergoing postoperative RT for bone metastases between June 2008 and January 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. Patterns of local failure were assessed, and Fine and Gray's univariable and multivariable analyses (MVA) were used to evaluate factors associated with local progression, including dose intensity of RT (biological equivalent dose, BED, Gy10) and percent coverage of the surgical hardware by the RT fields. Additional predictors were similarly assessed, including patient (eg, age, performance status), disease (eg, tumor type, metastasis site), and treatment (eg, interval from surgery to RT) characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 82 cases were followed for a median of 4.3 months (11.5 months among living patients) after treatment completion. Median BED was 39 Gy10 (range, 14-60), and RT fields covered an average of 71% (standard deviation, 26%) of the hardware. Fourteen cases (17%) experienced local progression. Although most (71%) failures occurred within the RT fields, 29% occurred marginally or out of field, but adjacent to surgical hardware. Increasing coverage of the surgical hardware by RT fields was associated with a reduced risk of local failure in MVA (hazard ratio [HR], 0.10; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.012-0.82; P = .03), whereas a greater risk of failure was seen with increasing time between surgery and RT (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06; P = .01). Extremity rather than spinal site trended toward a greater risk of failure but did not reach significance (HR, 3.79; 95% CI, 0.96-14.89; P = .057). BED ≥39 Gy10 did not predict local failure (P = .51) in MVA. CONCLUSIONS: Current strategies achieve good outcomes after postoperative RT for osseous metastases. Greater coverage of the surgical hardware with RT fields and avoiding delays between surgery and postoperative RT should be considered to reduce recurrence risk for patients with bone metastases requiring surgical stabilization.
Authors: Kristin J Redmond; Scott Robertson; Simon S Lo; Scott G Soltys; Samuel Ryu; Todd McNutt; Samuel T Chao; Yoshiya Yamada; Amol Ghia; Eric L Chang; Jason Sheehan; Arjun Sahgal Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-09-17 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Kristin J Redmond; Simon S Lo; Scott G Soltys; Yoshiya Yamada; Igor J Barani; Paul D Brown; Eric L Chang; Peter C Gerszten; Samuel T Chao; Robert J Amdur; Antonio A F De Salles; Matthias Guckenberger; Bin S Teh; Jason Sheehan; Charles R Kersh; Michael G Fehlings; Moon-Jun Sohn; Ung-Kyu Chang; Samuel Ryu; Iris C Gibbs; Arjun Sahgal Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2016-11-11
Authors: Erin F Gillespie; Noah J Mathis; Max Vaynrub; Ernesto Santos Martin; Rupesh Kotecha; Joseph Panoff; Andrew L Salner; Alyson F McIntosh; Ranju Gupta; Amitabh Gulati; Divya Yerramilli; Amy J Xu; Meredith Bartelstein; David M Guttmann; Yoshiya J Yamada; Diana Lin; Kaitlyn Lapen; Deborah Korenstein; David G Pfister; Allison Lipitz-Snyderman; Jonathan T Yang Journal: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-04-26
Authors: Daniel B Rosen; Justin M Haseltine; Meredith Bartelstein; Jessica R Flynn; Zhigang Zhang; Zachary A Kohutek; Yoshiya Yamada; Adam Schmitt; Daniel S Higginson; Maksim Vaynrub; Jonathan T Yang; Erin F Gillespie Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-07-28
Authors: Ryan D Kraus; Christopher R Weil; Stacey Wells; Jonathan D Tward; John S Groundland; Kevin B Jones; Donald M Cannon Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-09-10
Authors: Dominik Henzen; Daniel Schmidhalter; Gian Guyer; Anna Stenger-Weisser; Ekin Ermiş; Robert Poel; Moritz Caspar Deml; Michael Karl Fix; Peter Manser; Daniel Matthias Aebersold; Hossein Hemmatazad Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-05-12 Impact factor: 4.309
Authors: Ori Barzilai; Mary-Kate Amato; Lily McLaughlin; Anne S Reiner; Shahiba Q Ogilvie; Eric Lis; Yoshiya Yamada; Mark H Bilsky; Ilya Laufer Journal: Neurooncol Pract Date: 2017-07-22