Roman O Kowalchuk1, Michael R Waters1, K Martin Richardson1, Kelly Spencer1, James M Larner2, Jason P Sheehan3, William H McAllister4, Charles R Kersh1. 1. University of Virginia/Riverside, Radiosurgery Center, 500 J Clyde Morris Blvd, Newport News, VA 23601, USA. 2. University of Virginia, Department of Radiation Oncology, 1215 Lee St, Charlottesville, VA 22903, USA. 3. University of Virginia, Department of Neurosurgery, 1215 Lee St, Charlottesville, VA 22903, USA. 4. Riverside Regional Medical Center, Department of Neurosurgery, 500 J Clyde Morris Blvd, Newport News, VA 23601, USA.
Abstract
Background: This study compares the outcomes of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for sacral and thoracolumbar spine metastases. Methods: This analysis considered each sacral spine SBRT treatment at a single institution and a cohort of consecutive thoracolumbar treatments. Results: 28 patients with 35 sacral treatments and 41 patients with 49 thoracolumbar treatments were included. Local control was 63% and 90%, respectively. The sacral cohort contained more lesions with ≥2 vertebrae and epidural and paraspinal involvement. Sacral patients had larger treatment volumes, increased rates of subsequent SBRT, decreased propensity for pain improvement, and decreased local control (p=0.02 on Kaplan-Meier analysis). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that PTV > 50 cc and epidural involvement were correlated with decreased local control. No cases had grade ≥3 toxicity. Conclusion: SBRT for sacral spine metastases is a distinct disease process than metastases to the thoracolumbar spine, resulting in lower rates of local control and pain improvement.
Background: This study compares the outcomes of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for sacral and thoracolumbar spine metastases. Methods: This analysis considered each sacral spine SBRT treatment at a single institution and a cohort of consecutive thoracolumbar treatments. Results: 28 patients with 35 sacral treatments and 41 patients with 49 thoracolumbar treatments were included. Local control was 63% and 90%, respectively. The sacral cohort contained more lesions with ≥2 vertebrae and epidural and paraspinal involvement. Sacral patients had larger treatment volumes, increased rates of subsequent SBRT, decreased propensity for pain improvement, and decreased local control (p=0.02 on Kaplan-Meier analysis). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that PTV > 50 cc and epidural involvement were correlated with decreased local control. No cases had grade ≥3 toxicity. Conclusion: SBRT for sacral spine metastases is a distinct disease process than metastases to the thoracolumbar spine, resulting in lower rates of local control and pain improvement.
Authors: Stephen Lutz; Lawrence Berk; Eric Chang; Edward Chow; Carol Hahn; Peter Hoskin; David Howell; Andre Konski; Lisa Kachnic; Simon Lo; Arjun Sahgal; Larry Silverman; Charles von Gunten; Ehud Mendel; Andrew Vassil; Deborah Watkins Bruner; William Hartsell Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-01-27 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Xin Shelley Wang; Laurence D Rhines; Almon S Shiu; James N Yang; Ugur Selek; Ibrahima Gning; Ping Liu; Pamela K Allen; Syed S Azeem; Paul D Brown; Hadley J Sharp; David C Weksberg; Charles S Cleeland; Eric L Chang Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2012-01-27 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Anand Mahadevan; Scott Floyd; Eric Wong; Suriya Jeyapalan; Michael Groff; Ekkehard Kasper Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-10-13 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: A K Anand; G Venkadamanickam; A U Punnakal; B S Walia; A Kumar; A K Bansal; H M Singh Journal: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) Date: 2015-02-25 Impact factor: 4.126
Authors: Pretesh R Patel; John Kirkpatrick; Joseph K Salama; John Nelson; Gloria Broadwater; Karen Allen; Robert Clough; Fang-Fang Yin; Zhiheng Wang; Zheng Chang; Christopher Kelsey; A Paiman Ghafoori Journal: J Radiosurg SBRT Date: 2014
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: Yurday Ozdemir; Nese Torun; Ozan Cem Guler; Berna Akkus Yildirim; Ali A Besen; Aylin Gunesli Yetisken; H Cem Onal; Erkan Topkan Journal: J Bone Oncol Date: 2019-01-24 Impact factor: 4.072