Efficacy and safety of SBRT for spine metastases: A systematic review and meta-analysis for preparation of an ESTRO practice guideline.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Advances in characterizing cancer biology and the growing availability of novel targeted agents and immune therapeutics have significantly changed the prognosis of many patients with metastatic disease. Palliative radiotherapy needs to adapt to these developments. In this study, we summarize the available evidence for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in the treatment of spinal metastases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using PRISMA methodology, including publications from January 2005 to September 2021, with the exception of the randomized phase III trial RTOG-0631 which was added in April 2023. Re-irradiation was excluded. For meta-analysis, a random-effects model was used to pool the data. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I2-test, assuming substantial and considerable as I2 > 50 % and I2 > 75 %, respectively. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 69 studies assessing the outcomes of 7236 metastases in 5736 patients were analyzed. SBRT for spine metastases showed high efficacy, with a pooled overall pain response rate of 83 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 68 %-94 %), pooled complete pain response of 36 % (95 % CI: 20 %-53 %), and 1-year local control rate of 94 % (95 % CI: 86 %-99 %), although with high levels of heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 93 %, I2 = 86 %, and 86 %, respectively). Furthermore, SBRT was safe, with a pooled vertebral fracture rate of 9 % (95 % CI: 4 %-16 %), pooled radiation induced myelopathy rate of 0 % (95 % CI 0-2 %), and pooled pain flare rate of 6 % (95 % CI: 3 %-17 %), although with mixed levels of heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 92 %, I2 = 0 %, and 95 %, respectively). Only 1.7 % of vertebral fractures required surgical stabilization. CONCLUSION: Spine SBRT is characterized by a favorable efficacy and safety profile, providing durable results for pain control and disease control, which is particularly relevant for oligometastatic patients.

Detection of distant interval metastases after neoadjuvant therapy for esophageal cancer with 18F-FDG PET(/CT): a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Restaging after neoadjuvant therapy aims to reduce the number of patients undergoing esophagectomy in case of distant (interval) metastases. The aim of this study is to systematically review and meta-analyze the diagnostic performance of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG PET) and 18F-FDG PET/CT for the detection of distant interval metastases after neoadjuvant therapy in patients with esophageal cancer. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane library were systematically searched. The analysis included diagnostic studies reporting on the detection of distant interval metastases with 18F-FDG PET(/CT) in patients with esophageal cancer who received neoadjuvant therapy and both baseline staging and restaging after neoadjuvant therapy with 18F-FDG PET(/CT) imaging. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients in whom distant interval metastases were detected by 18F-FDG PET(/CT) as confirmed by pathology or clinical follow-up (i.e. true positives). The secondary outcome measure was the proportion of patients in whom 18F-FDG PET(/CT) restaging was false positive for distant interval metastases (i.e. false positives). Risk of bias and applicability concerns were assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Random-effect models were used to estimate pooled outcomes and examine potential sources of heterogeneity. Fourteen studies were included comprising a total of 1,110 patients who received baseline staging with 18F-FDG PET(/CT) imaging of whom 1,001 (90%) underwent restaging with 18F-FDG PET(/CT) imaging. Studies were generally of moderate quality. The pooled proportion of patients in whom true distant interval metastases were detected by 18F-FDG PET(/CT) restaging was 8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5-13%). The pooled proportion of patients in whom false positive distant findings were detected by 18F-FDG PET(/CT) restaging was 5% (95% CI: 3-9%). In conclusion,18F-FDG PET(/CT) restaging after neoadjuvant therapy for esophageal cancer detects true distant interval metastases in 8% of patients. Therefore, 18F-FDG PET(/CT) restaging can considerably impact on treatment decision-making. However, false positive distant findings occur in 5% of patients at restaging with 18F-FDG PET(/CT), underlining the need for pathological confirmation of suspected lesions.