Raj Singh1, Eric J Lehrer2, Basem Dahshan3, Joshua D Palmer4, Arjun Sahgal5, Peter C Gerszten6, Nicholas G Zaorsky7, Daniel M Trifiletti8. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, Richmond, USA. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, USA. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown, USA. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology and Neurosurgery, The James Cancer Hospital at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, USA. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Hospital, Toronto, Canada. 6. Departments of Neurosurgery and Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, USA. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, Penn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, USA. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, USA. Electronic address: trifiletti.daniel@mayo.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review/meta-analysis of outcomes for patients with spinal metastases treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) (either single-fraction (SF-SRS) or multiple-fraction (MF-SRS)) or conventional radiotherapy (RT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-seven studies were identified. Primary outcomes were 1-year local control (LC) and acute/late grade 3-5 toxicities (including vertebral compression fractures (VCF)). Weighted random effects meta-analyses using the DerSimonian and Laird methods and meta-regressions were conducted to characterize and compare effect sizes. Mixed effects regression models were used in dose analyses. RESULTS: A total of 3237 patients with 4911 lesions were included; 43.8%, 19.7%, and 36.5% of lesions received SF-SRS, MF-SRS, or RT, respectively. SF-SRS resulted in improved 1-year LC (92.9% (95% CI: 86.4-97.4%); p = 0.007) compared to RT (81.0% (95% CI: 69.2-90.5%)) with no difference between MF-SRS (82.1%; p = 0.86) and RT. On subgroup analysis of de novo metastases, superior 1-year LC following SF-SRS (95.5% (95% CI: 87.4-99.6%)) was maintained compared to RT (83.6% (95% CI: 70.4-93.5%); p = 0.007). A 4.7% increase in LC was noted for each 10 Gy10 increase in biologically effective dose (BED10, assuming an alpha/beta = 10) with SRS (p < 0.001). No difference in toxicities were found between SF-SRS (0.4%), MF-SRS (0.2%), or RT (0%). Higher VCF rates were noted following SF-SRS (19.5%) vs. MF-SRS (9.6%; p = 0.039)) with no correlation between dose and VCF rates. CONCLUSION: SF-SRS resulted in superior LC with a roughly 5% LC benefit for every 10 Gy10 increase in BED10 with higher VCF rates compared to MF-SRS. If LC is the goal of treatment, then SRS may be a preferred treatment modality. However, these results are hypothesis-generating, and prospective randomized clinical trials are indicated to definitively address the question of whether SRS results in improved LC compared to RT.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review/meta-analysis of outcomes for patients with spinal metastases treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) (either single-fraction (SF-SRS) or multiple-fraction (MF-SRS)) or conventional radiotherapy (RT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-seven studies were identified. Primary outcomes were 1-year local control (LC) and acute/late grade 3-5 toxicities (including vertebral compression fractures (VCF)). Weighted random effects meta-analyses using the DerSimonian and Laird methods and meta-regressions were conducted to characterize and compare effect sizes. Mixed effects regression models were used in dose analyses. RESULTS: A total of 3237 patients with 4911 lesions were included; 43.8%, 19.7%, and 36.5% of lesions received SF-SRS, MF-SRS, or RT, respectively. SF-SRS resulted in improved 1-year LC (92.9% (95% CI: 86.4-97.4%); p = 0.007) compared to RT (81.0% (95% CI: 69.2-90.5%)) with no difference between MF-SRS (82.1%; p = 0.86) and RT. On subgroup analysis of de novo metastases, superior 1-year LC following SF-SRS (95.5% (95% CI: 87.4-99.6%)) was maintained compared to RT (83.6% (95% CI: 70.4-93.5%); p = 0.007). A 4.7% increase in LC was noted for each 10 Gy10 increase in biologically effective dose (BED10, assuming an alpha/beta = 10) with SRS (p < 0.001). No difference in toxicities were found between SF-SRS (0.4%), MF-SRS (0.2%), or RT (0%). Higher VCF rates were noted following SF-SRS (19.5%) vs. MF-SRS (9.6%; p = 0.039)) with no correlation between dose and VCF rates. CONCLUSION: SF-SRS resulted in superior LC with a roughly 5% LC benefit for every 10 Gy10 increase in BED10 with higher VCF rates compared to MF-SRS. If LC is the goal of treatment, then SRS may be a preferred treatment modality. However, these results are hypothesis-generating, and prospective randomized clinical trials are indicated to definitively address the question of whether SRS results in improved LC compared to RT.
Authors: Gustavo N Marta; Fernando F de Arruda; Fabiana A Miranda; Alice R N S Silva; Wellington F P Neves-Junior; Anselmo Mancini; Samir A Hanna; Carlos E C V Abreu; João Luis F da Silva; Jose Eduardo V Nascimento; Cecília Maria K Haddad; Fabio Y Moraes; Rafael Gadia Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2021-09-30
Authors: Ruben Van den Brande; Erwin Mj Cornips; Marc Peeters; Piet Ost; Charlotte Billiet; Erik Van de Kelft Journal: J Bone Oncol Date: 2022-07-09 Impact factor: 4.491
Authors: Tamara Fogarty; Mark Tacey; Giulia McCorkell; David Kok; Colin Hornby; Roger L Milne; Jeremy Millar; Farshad Foroudi; Wee Loon Ong Journal: J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 1.667