Tosol Yu1, Chul-Won Choi1, Kyung Su Kim1,2. 1. 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Dongnam Institute of Radiological & Medical Sciences , Busan , Republic of Korea. 2. 2 Department of Radiation Oncology, Ewha Womans University College of Medicine , Seoul , Republic of Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report treatment outcomes of stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) for non-spinal bone metastases in a single institution, and to compare assessments of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v. 1.1 and the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDA) criteria. METHODS: From July 2011 to January 2017, 33 patients with 38 non-spinal bone metastatic lesions were treated using SABR. Treatment intent was categorized as follows: single metastasis or oligo-metastases; oligo-progression; and dominant areas of progression. Tumor responses were evaluated according to the RECIST and MDA criteria. Local control (LC) was defined as lesions that were not classified as progressive disease on both criteria. RESULTS: The median follow-up period was 10.4 months (range, 2.5-47.4). Both 1- and 2 year LC rates were 94.2 %. The median overall survival (OS) was 20.2 months, and the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.9 months. Treatment intent was a significant factor for OS in multivariate analysis. The 1 year OS rates for single metastasis or oligo-metastasis, for oligo-progression, and for dominant areas of progression were 84.2%, 66.7%, and 0.0%, respectively ( p < 0.001). Overall response rate was 86.8 % according to MDA criteria, and 75.7 % according to RECIST criteria. When using MDA criteria, there appeared to be significant associations both between response and PFS (median 7.6 months for responders vs 2.5 months for non-responders; p = 0.036) and between response and OS. In contrast, when using RECIST criteria, the associations were significant neither between response and PFS (median 5.8 months for responders vs 9.3 months for non-responders; p = 0.522) nor between response and OS (25.7 months for responders vs 18.5 months for non-responders; p = 0.811). CONCLUSION: SABR for non-spinal bone metastases demonstrated high LC rates with acceptable toxicity. The MDA criteria demonstrated advantages in predicting survival outcomes. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: SABR for non-spinal bone metastases is a promising treatment option to achieve good local control. The MDA criteria, which is a newly proposed response evaluation criteria for bone metastases, has advantages in predicting survival outcomes compared to other established criteria.
OBJECTIVE: To report treatment outcomes of stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) for non-spinal bone metastases in a single institution, and to compare assessments of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v. 1.1 and the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDA) criteria. METHODS: From July 2011 to January 2017, 33 patients with 38 non-spinal bone metastatic lesions were treated using SABR. Treatment intent was categorized as follows: single metastasis or oligo-metastases; oligo-progression; and dominant areas of progression. Tumor responses were evaluated according to the RECIST and MDA criteria. Local control (LC) was defined as lesions that were not classified as progressive disease on both criteria. RESULTS: The median follow-up period was 10.4 months (range, 2.5-47.4). Both 1- and 2 year LC rates were 94.2 %. The median overall survival (OS) was 20.2 months, and the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.9 months. Treatment intent was a significant factor for OS in multivariate analysis. The 1 year OS rates for single metastasis or oligo-metastasis, for oligo-progression, and for dominant areas of progression were 84.2%, 66.7%, and 0.0%, respectively ( p < 0.001). Overall response rate was 86.8 % according to MDA criteria, and 75.7 % according to RECIST criteria. When using MDA criteria, there appeared to be significant associations both between response and PFS (median 7.6 months for responders vs 2.5 months for non-responders; p = 0.036) and between response and OS. In contrast, when using RECIST criteria, the associations were significant neither between response and PFS (median 5.8 months for responders vs 9.3 months for non-responders; p = 0.522) nor between response and OS (25.7 months for responders vs 18.5 months for non-responders; p = 0.811). CONCLUSION: SABR for non-spinal bone metastases demonstrated high LC rates with acceptable toxicity. The MDA criteria demonstrated advantages in predicting survival outcomes. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: SABR for non-spinal bone metastases is a promising treatment option to achieve good local control. The MDA criteria, which is a newly proposed response evaluation criteria for bone metastases, has advantages in predicting survival outcomes compared to other established criteria.
Authors: Gillian Bedard; Rachel McDonald; Ian Poon; Darby Erler; Hany Soliman; Patrick Cheung; Hans Chung; William Chu; Andrew Loblaw; Edward Chow; Arjun Sahgal Journal: Ann Palliat Med Date: 2016-01
Authors: Darby Erler; Drew Brotherston; Arjun Sahgal; Patrick Cheung; Andrew Loblaw; William Chu; Hany Soliman; Hans Chung; Alex Kiss; Edward Chow; Ian Poon Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2018-04-26 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Chikako Suzuki; Michael R Torkzad; Hans Jacobsson; Gunnar Aström; Anders Sundin; Thomas Hatschek; Hirofumi Fujii; Lennart Blomqvist Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Tsuyoshi Hamaoka; John E Madewell; Donald A Podoloff; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Naoto T Ueno Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-07-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Dawn Owen; Nadia N Laack; Charles S Mayo; Yolanda I Garces; Sean S Park; Heather J Bauer; Kathryn Nelson; Robert W Miller; Paul D Brown; Kenneth R Olivier Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2013-06-29
Authors: Rachel McDonald; Linda Probyn; Ian Poon; Darby Erler; Drew Brotherston; Hany Soliman; Patrick Cheung; Hans Chung; William Chu; Andrew Loblaw; Nemica Thavarajah; Catherine Lang; Lee Chin; Edward Chow; Arjun Sahgal Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-10-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: T Hamaoka; C M Costelloe; J E Madewell; P Liu; D A Berry; R Islam; R L Theriault; G N Hortobagyi; N T Ueno Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-01-26 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Kamran A Ahmed; Brandon M Barney; Brian J Davis; Sean S Park; Eugene D Kwon; Kenneth R Olivier Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2013-01-22 Impact factor: 6.244
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