Tanja Sprave1, Vivek Verma2, Robert Förster3, Ingmar Schlampp4, Thomas Bruckner5, Tilman Bostel6, Stefan Ezechiel Welte7, Eric Tonndorf-Martini8, Nils Henrik Nicolay9, Jürgen Debus10, Harald Rief11. 1. University Hospital of Heidelberg, Department of Radiation Oncology, Germany; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Germany. Electronic address: tanja.sprave@med.uni-heidelberg.de. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, USA. 3. University Hospital of Heidelberg, Department of Radiation Oncology, Germany; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Germany; University Hospital Zurich, Department of Radiation Oncology, Switzerland. Electronic address: robert.foerster@usz.ch. 4. University Hospital of Heidelberg, Department of Radiation Oncology, Germany; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Germany. Electronic address: ingmar.schlampp@med.uni-heidelberg.de. 5. University Hospital of Heidelberg, Department of Medical Biometry, Germany. Electronic address: bruckner@imbi.uni-heidelberg.de. 6. University Hospital of Heidelberg, Department of Radiation Oncology, Germany. Electronic address: tilmann.bostel@med.uni-heidelberg.de. 7. University Hospital of Heidelberg, Department of Radiation Oncology, Germany. Electronic address: stefan.welte@med.uni-heidelberg.de. 8. University Hospital of Heidelberg, Department of Radiation Oncology, Germany. Electronic address: eric.tonndorf-martini@med.uni-heidelberg.de. 9. University Hospital of Heidelberg, Department of Radiation Oncology, Germany; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Germany; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Germany. Electronic address: nils.nicolay@dkfz.de. 10. University Hospital of Heidelberg, Department of Radiation Oncology, Germany; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Germany. Electronic address: juergen.debus@med.uni-heidelberg.de. 11. University Hospital of Heidelberg, Department of Radiation Oncology, Germany; Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Germany. Electronic address: harald.rief@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To report the primary endpoint of a randomized trial comparing pain response following palliative stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) versus conventionally-fractionated 3D-conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) for previously untreated spinal metastases. METHODS:Fifty-five patients with histologically/radiologically confirmed painful spinal metastases were analyzed in this single-institutional, non-blinded, randomized explorative trial. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive single-fraction SBRT (24 Gy) or 3DCRT (30 Gy in 10 fractions). The primary endpoint was pain relief of >2 points on the visual analog scale (VAS) measured within the irradiated region at 3 months following radiotherapy completion. Other recorded parameters included pain response (per International Bone Consensus response definitions), use of concurrent medications and opioid usage (oral morphine equivalent dose, OMED). All parameters were assessed at baseline and at three and six months after RT. Intention-to-treat analysis was applied. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02358720. FINDINGS: Despite no significant differences for VAS at 3 months between groups (p = 0.13), pain values decreased faster within this time period in the SBRT arm (p = 0.01). At 6 months following RT, significantly lower VAS values were reported in the SBRT group (p = 0.002). There were no differences in OMED consumption at 3 (p = 0.761) and 6 months (p = 0.174). There was a trend toward improved pain response in the SBRT arm at 3 months (p = 0.057), but significantly so after 6 months (p = 0.003). No patient in the SBRT group experienced grade ≥3 toxicities according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v.4.03. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized trial demonstrates the utility of palliative SBRT for spinal metastases, which was associated with a quicker and improved pain response. Larger ongoing randomized studies will assist in further addressing these endpoints.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: To report the primary endpoint of a randomized trial comparing pain response following palliative stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) versus conventionally-fractionated 3D-conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) for previously untreated spinal metastases. METHODS: Fifty-five patients with histologically/radiologically confirmed painful spinal metastases were analyzed in this single-institutional, non-blinded, randomized explorative trial. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive single-fraction SBRT (24 Gy) or 3DCRT (30 Gy in 10 fractions). The primary endpoint was pain relief of >2 points on the visual analog scale (VAS) measured within the irradiated region at 3 months following radiotherapy completion. Other recorded parameters included pain response (per International Bone Consensus response definitions), use of concurrent medications and opioid usage (oral morphine equivalent dose, OMED). All parameters were assessed at baseline and at three and six months after RT. Intention-to-treat analysis was applied. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02358720. FINDINGS: Despite no significant differences for VAS at 3 months between groups (p = 0.13), pain values decreased faster within this time period in the SBRT arm (p = 0.01). At 6 months following RT, significantly lower VAS values were reported in the SBRT group (p = 0.002). There were no differences in OMED consumption at 3 (p = 0.761) and 6 months (p = 0.174). There was a trend toward improved pain response in the SBRT arm at 3 months (p = 0.057), but significantly so after 6 months (p = 0.003). No patient in the SBRT group experienced grade ≥3 toxicities according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v.4.03. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized trial demonstrates the utility of palliative SBRT for spinal metastases, which was associated with a quicker and improved pain response. Larger ongoing randomized studies will assist in further addressing these endpoints.
Authors: Roman O Kowalchuk; Michael R Waters; K Martin Richardson; Kelly Spencer; James M Larner; Jason P Sheehan; William H McAllister; Charles R Kersh Journal: J Radiosurg SBRT Date: 2020
Authors: S G C Kroeze; C Fritz; L Basler; E Gkika; T B Brunner; A L Grosu; M Guckenberger Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2019-02-08 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Jennifer K Logan; Jing Jiang; Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Xiudong Lei; Ying Xu; Karen E Hoffman; Sharon H Giordano; Benjamin D Smith Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2019-03-08 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Noah J Mathis; Connor J Doyle; Daniel B Rosen; N Ari Wijetunga; Max Vaynrub; Meredith Bartelstein; David M Guttmann; Victoria S Brennan; Yoshiya J Yamada; Erin F Gillespie; Divya Yerramilli; Jonathan T Yang Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2021-10-26 Impact factor: 8.013
Authors: Patricia Mae G Santos; Kaitlyn Lapen; Zhigang Zhang; Stephanie Lobaugh; C Jillian Tsai; T Jonathan Yang; Justin E Bekelman; Erin F Gillespie Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2020-11-12 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Charlotte Billiet; Ines Joye; Carole Mercier; Lieselotte Depuydt; Geert De Kerf; Peter Vermeulen; Steven Van Laere; Erik Van de Kelft; Paul Meijnders; Dirk Verellen; Piet Dirix Journal: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-06-25
Authors: Rami A El Shafie; Dorothea Weber; Nina Bougatf; Tanja Sprave; Dieter Oetzel; Peter E Huber; Jürgen Debus; Nils H Nicolay Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2018-08-30 Impact factor: 4.773