| Literature DB >> 28893299 |
Johannes Roesch1, John B C Cho2, Daniel K Fahim3, Peter C Gerszten4, John C Flickinger5, Inga S Grills6, Maha Jawad6, Ronald Kersh7, Daniel Letourneau2, Frederick Mantel8, Arjun Sahgal9, John H Shin10, Brian Winey11, Matthias Guckenberger12.
Abstract
OBJECT: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for vertebral metastases has emerged as a promising technique, offering high rates of symptom relief and local control combined with low risk of toxicity. Nonetheless, local failure or vertebral instability may occur after spine SBRT, generating the need for subsequent surgery in the irradiated region. This study evaluated whether there is an increased incidence of surgical complications in patients previously treated with SBRT at the index level.Entities:
Keywords: Complications; Radiosurgery; SBRT; Spine surgery; Spine tumor; Stereotactic radiotherapy of the spine
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28893299 PMCID: PMC5594477 DOI: 10.1186/s13014-017-0887-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Radiat Oncol ISSN: 1748-717X Impact factor: 3.481
Patient and disease characteristics
| Patient characteristics |
| |
| Median age at Operation | 59y (27–84) | |
| Gender | Females: 17 | Males: 13 |
| Primary site | Number | Percentage |
| Kidney | 10 | 33% |
| Breast | 7 | 23% |
| Prostate | 3 | 10% |
| Melanoma | 2 | 7% |
| NSCLC | 1 | 3% |
| Colorectal | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 20% |
Available RT-characteristics of all SBRT, primary SBRT only, secondary SBRT only with a history of conventional RT in the same region and conventional RT prior to SBRT
| SBRT over all | Primary SBRT | Secondary SBRT | Prior conventional RT | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of treatments | Median prescription dose (range) | Number of treatments | Median prescription dose (range) | Number of treatments | Median prescription dose (range) | Number of treatments | Median prescription dose (range) | |
| Over all | 32 | 19,3 (15–65) | 15 | 21.7 Gy (15.7–65 Gy) | 17 | 18 Gy (15–24 Gy) | 16 | 30 Gy (20–40 Gy) |
| 1 fraction | 25 | 18,4 Gy (15–24 Gy) | 10 | 20.5 Gy (15.7–24 Gy) | 15 | 18 Gy (15–20 Gy) | 3 | 20 Gy in 5 fractions |
| 2 fractions | 3 | 24 Gy | 2 | 24 Gy | 1 | 24 Gy | 11 | 30 Gy in 10 fractions |
| 3 fractions | 2 | 17,7 Gy (15–20,4 Gy) | 1 | 20.4 Gy | 1 | 15 Gy | 1 | 35 Gy in 14 fractions |
| 5 fractions | 1 | 25 Gy | 1 | 25 Gy | 1 | 40 Gy in 20 fractions | ||
| 17 fractions | 1 | 65 Gy | 1 | 65 Gy | ||||
Fig. 1Venn diagram illustrating the reason for surgery: fracture = red circle, neurological deficit = green circle, pain = yellow circle
Fig. 2Venn diagram illustrating the type of surgery: decompression = red circle, stabilization = green circle, vertebroplasty = yellow circle
Systemic, local and overall complication rate for 26 surgical interventions (open surgical decompression and/or instrumental stabilization) at 25 sites in 25 patients with previous conventional RT and SBRT or SBRT only at the same level
| Overall ( | RT + SBRT (n = 15) | SBRT ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Systemic complications | 4 (in 3 patients = 12%) | 1 (7%) | 3 (in 2 patients = 27%) |
| Pneumonia / urinary tract infection | 1 / 1 | 0 | 1 / 1 |
| Deep vein thrombosis | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Perioperative death (within 30 days) | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Local complications | 3 (in 2 patients = 8%) | 3 (in 2 patients = 13%) | 0 |
| Increased neurological deficit | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Spinal instability | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Delayed wound healing | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Postoperative bleeding/Hematoma | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Overall complication rate | 7 (in 5 patients = 19%) | 4 (in 3 patients = 17%) | 3 (in 2 patients = 27%) |
Summary of trials with general and local complication rates after spine surgery with and without previous RT
| Study, year | Main type of surgery | Complications rate | Wound complications | Perioperative deaths = 30 days mortality | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall / Number of patients | RT + S / number of patients | S alone / number of patients | overall / number of surgeries | RT + S / number of surgeries | S alone / number of surgeries | |||
| Demura, 2009 [ | Debulking / stabilization | – | – | – | 7.1% / 113 | 31.8% / 22 | 1.1% / 91 | – |
| Ghogawala, 2001 [ | Posterolateral decompression and stabilization | / 85 | – | – | – | 32% / 28 | 12% / 34 | – |
| Lau, 2013 [ | – | 21.7% / 106 | 23.5% / 81 | 16% / 25 | 3.8%/106 | – | – | 1 (0.9%) |
| Pascal, 1998 [ | Post + ant. approach | 18.6% / 145 | – | – | 11% / 145 | 12% | 1% | 3 (2%) |
| Quan, 2011 [ | Post + ant. approach | 26% / 118 | 42% / 19 | – | 6.8% / 118 | 15.8% / 19 | 5% / 99 | 9 (7.6%) |
| Shehadi, 2007 [ | – | – | – | 39% / 87 | – | No significant difference | – | |
| Sundaresan, 2002 [ | Ant. Approach + post. stab. | 80 | 15% / 40 | 40% / 40 | 13.8% / 80 | 25% / 40 | 2.5% / 40 | 1 (1.3%) |
| Wang, 2004 [ | Posterior approach | 14.3% / 140 | 84 | 56 | 11.4% / 140 | No significant difference | 6 (4.3%) | |
| Wise, 1999 [ | Post + ant. approach | 25% / 80 | 15.5% / 41 | 9.3% /39 | 17.1% / 80 | – | – | 2 (2.3%) |
| Yokogawa, 2014 [ | Total en bloc spondylectomy | 40% / 50 | 77.8% / 18 | 18.8% / 32 | 8% / 50 | 22.2% / 18 | 0% / 32 | – |