Arya Amini1, Basel Altoos1, Maria T Bourlon2,3, Edward Bedrick4, Shilpa Bhatia1, Elizabeth R Kessler2, Thomas W Flaig2, Christine M Fisher1, Brian D Kavanagh1, Elaine T Lam2, Sana D Karam1. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado. 2. Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, Colorado. 3. Medical Oncology Department, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico. 4. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Shared Resource, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, Colorado.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We report the radiographic and clinical response rate of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) compared with conventional fractionated external beam radiation therapy (CF-EBRT) for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) bone lesions treated at our institution. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Forty-six consecutive patients were included in the study, with 95 total lesions treated (50 SBRT, 45 CF-EBRT). We included patients who had histologic confirmation of primary RCC and radiographic evidence of metastatic bone lesions. The most common SBRT regimen used was 27 Gy in 3 fractions. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 10 months (range, 1-64 months). Median time to symptom control between SBRT and CF-EBRT were 2 (range, 0-6 weeks) and 4 weeks (range, 0-7 weeks), respectively. Symptom control rates with SBRT and CF-EBRT were significantly different (P = .020) with control rates at 10, 12, and 24 months of 74.9% versus 44.1%, 74.9% versus 39.9%, and 74.9% versus 35.7%, respectively. The median time to radiographic failure and unadjusted pain progression was 7 months in both groups. When controlling for gross tumor volume, dose per fraction, smoking, and the use of systemic therapy, biologically effective dose ≥80 Gy was significant for clinical response (hazard ratio [HR], 0.204; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.043-0.963; P = .046) and radiographic (HR, 0.075; 95% CI, 0.013-0.430; P = .004). When controlling for gross tumor volume and total dose, biologically effective dose ≥80 Gy was again predictive of clinical local control (HR, 0.140; 95% CI, 0.025-0.787; P = .026). Toxicity rates were low and equivalent in both groups, with no grade 4 or 5 toxicity reported. CONCLUSIONS: SBRT is both safe and effective for treating RCC bone metastases, with rapid improvement in symptoms after treatment and more durable clinical and radiographic response rate. Future prospective trials are needed to further define efficacy and toxicity of treatment, especially in the setting of targeted agents.
PURPOSE: We report the radiographic and clinical response rate of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) compared with conventional fractionated external beam radiation therapy (CF-EBRT) for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) bone lesions treated at our institution. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Forty-six consecutive patients were included in the study, with 95 total lesions treated (50 SBRT, 45 CF-EBRT). We included patients who had histologic confirmation of primary RCC and radiographic evidence of metastatic bone lesions. The most common SBRT regimen used was 27 Gy in 3 fractions. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 10 months (range, 1-64 months). Median time to symptom control between SBRT and CF-EBRT were 2 (range, 0-6 weeks) and 4 weeks (range, 0-7 weeks), respectively. Symptom control rates with SBRT and CF-EBRT were significantly different (P = .020) with control rates at 10, 12, and 24 months of 74.9% versus 44.1%, 74.9% versus 39.9%, and 74.9% versus 35.7%, respectively. The median time to radiographic failure and unadjusted pain progression was 7 months in both groups. When controlling for gross tumor volume, dose per fraction, smoking, and the use of systemic therapy, biologically effective dose ≥80 Gy was significant for clinical response (hazard ratio [HR], 0.204; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.043-0.963; P = .046) and radiographic (HR, 0.075; 95% CI, 0.013-0.430; P = .004). When controlling for gross tumor volume and total dose, biologically effective dose ≥80 Gy was again predictive of clinical local control (HR, 0.140; 95% CI, 0.025-0.787; P = .026). Toxicity rates were low and equivalent in both groups, with no grade 4 or 5 toxicity reported. CONCLUSIONS:SBRT is both safe and effective for treating RCC bone metastases, with rapid improvement in symptoms after treatment and more durable clinical and radiographic response rate. Future prospective trials are needed to further define efficacy and toxicity of treatment, especially in the setting of targeted agents.
Authors: M Oguchi; H Ikeda; T Watanabe; N Shikama; T Ohata; Y Okazaki; K Kiyono; S Sone Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1998-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Peter C Gerszten; Steven A Burton; Cihat Ozhasoglu; William J Vogel; William C Welch; Joseph Baar; David M Friedland Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2005-10
Authors: Peter S Rose; Ilya Laufer; Patrick J Boland; Andrew Hanover; Mark H Bilsky; Josh Yamada; Eric Lis Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-09-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Gert De Meerleer; Vincent Khoo; Bernard Escudier; Steven Joniau; Alberto Bossi; Piet Ost; Alberto Briganti; Valérie Fonteyne; Marco Van Vulpen; Nicolaas Lumen; Martin Spahn; Marc Mareel Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Kyle E Rusthoven; Brian D Kavanagh; Higinia Cardenes; Volker W Stieber; Stuart H Burri; Steven J Feigenberg; Mark A Chidel; Thomas J Pugh; Wilbur Franklin; Madeleine Kane; Laurie E Gaspar; Tracey E Schefter Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-03-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: John W Nelson; David S Yoo; John H Sampson; Robert E Isaacs; Nicole A Larrier; Lawrence B Marks; Fang-Fang Yin; Q Jackie Wu; Zhiheng Wang; John P Kirkpatrick Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-11-10 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Christopher L Tinkle; Brent A Orr; John T Lucas; Paul Klimo; Zoltan Patay; Suzanne J Baker; Alberto Broniscer; Ibrahim Qaddoumi Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2017-01-13 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Shankar Siva; Gargi Kothari; Alexander Muacevic; Alexander V Louie; Ben J Slotman; Bin S Teh; Simon S Lo Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2017-06-20 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: F Lopez-Campos; J Cacicedo; F Couñago; R García; O Leaman-Alcibar; A Navarro-Martin; H Pérez-Montero; A Conde-Moreno Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2021-10-11 Impact factor: 3.405