| Literature DB >> 35355546 |
Ravi Gaddipati1, Garrett L Jensen1, Gregory Swanson1, Kendall Hammonds2, Andrew Morrow1.
Abstract
Objective Increased rates of insufficiency fractures are reported after radiation therapy without well-defined causality. Here, we conduct a cross-sectional study on the density change of a non-lesioned vertebral bone after irradiation relative to a control bone in patients with spinal metastases. Methods Patients were identified who received radiation therapy for spinal metastases to a region, including an adjacent vertebra without identifiable malignancy on pre-treatment CT. Every patient had an untreated vertebra of a similar type available as a control. A Hounsfield-density calibration curve was used to measure the vertebral body density before and after treatment. Analysis of covariance was used to model vertebral bone density changes with respect to treatment status. Significance was established as p < 0.05. Results We identified 36 patients who fit the study criteria. The irradiated healthy bone received a median dose of 30 Gy. The median biologically effective dose (BED) was 60 Gy (α/β = 3) and 39 Gy (α/β = 10). Median follow-up imaging intervals between pre-treatment and follow-up CT scans was 13.4 months. Levene's test was used to confirm the equality of error variance assumption of ANCOVA (p = 0.093). The mean change in the density of the irradiated vertebral bone was -3.59% (95% CI = -8.51% - 1.32%, p = 0.149). Conclusions We found no significant change in vertebral bone density attributable to radiation treatment. Further work is needed to elucidate if increased fracture rates after radiation are due to factors other than bone density.Entities:
Keywords: bone density; metastasis; radiation therapy; stereotactic body radiotherapy; vertebral compression fracture
Year: 2022 PMID: 35355546 PMCID: PMC8957311 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.22565
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cureus ISSN: 2168-8184
Demographics
| Demographics | |||||
| Sex | |||||
| Male | 20 | ||||
| Female | 16 | ||||
| Ethnicity | |||||
| Caucasian | 32 | ||||
| African American | 8 | ||||
| Other | 1 | ||||
| Primary Malignancy | |||||
| Bladder | 1 | ||||
| Breast | 8 | ||||
| Carcinoid | 1 | ||||
| Liver | 2 | ||||
| Lung | 5 | ||||
| Myeloma | 4 | ||||
| Pancreatic | 3 | ||||
| Prostate | 12 | ||||
| Renal | 5 | ||||
| Age | |||||
| Median | Min | Max | |||
| 69.6 | 48.0 | 92.2 | |||
| Dose (cGy) | |||||
| Median | Min | Max | |||
| 3000.0 | 800.0 | 4500.0 | |||
| Follow-up Period (Months) | |||||
| Median | Min | Max | |||
| 13.4 | 2.3 | 34.6 | |||
| Vertebra Type | |||||
| Cervical | 1 | ||||
| Thoracic | 21 | ||||
| Lumbar | 19 | ||||
Figure 1Transverse (A), coronal (B), and sagittal (C) views demonstrating the contouring strategy with isodose lines
The lesioned vertebral body is outlined in blue. The density of the adjacent irradiated segment (purple) and control (yellow) was measured in this study.
Figure 2The average density of control and irradiated bone before and after treatment