Radiotherapy for painful shoulder syndrome: a retrospective evaluation.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the efficacy of low-dose radiotherapy for painful shoulder syndrome from an orthopedic perspective. METHODS: Patients with painful shoulder syndrome were recruited for this retrospective clinical quality assessment from January 2011 to December 2017. Patients were treated with a linear accelerator or an orthovoltage device at individual doses of 0.5-1.0 Gy and total doses of 3.0-6.0 Gy. To assess response, we used the von Pannewitz score with five levels: "worsened," "unaffected," "improved," "significantly improved," and "symptom free." "Good treatment success" was defined as "significantly improved" and "symptom free." Within-group and between-group differences were statistically evaluated. RESULTS: Of 236 recruited patients (150 women, 86 men; mean age 66.3 [range 31-96] years), 180 patients underwent radiotherapy with a linear accelerator and 56 with an orthovoltage device. Fractionation was 12â€¯× 0.5 Gy in 120 patients, 6â€¯× 0.5 Gy in 74, and 6â€¯× 1 Gy in 42 patients. Treatments were completed in one series for 223 and in two series at least 6 weeks apart for 13 patients. Of the 236 patients, 163 patients (69.1%) agreed to be re-interviewed at a median of 10.5 (range 4-60) months after radiotherapy completion. Directly after radiotherapy, 30.9% (73 patients) had "good treatment success," which had increased to 55.2% (90 patients) at follow-up. CONCLUSION: Protracted pain improvement with low-dose radiotherapy is possible in painful shoulder syndrome. Patients with refractory pain because of subacromial syndrome or shoulder osteoarthritis should also be evaluated for radiotherapy.

DEGRO guidelines for the radiotherapy of non-malignant disorders. Part II: Painful degenerative skeletal disorders.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to summarize the updated DEGRO consensus S2e guideline recommendations for the treatment of benign painful degenerative skeletal disorders with low-dose radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This overview reports on the role of low-dose radiotherapy in the treatment of enthesiopathies (shoulder syndrome, trochanteric bursitis, plantar fasciitis, and elbow syndrome) and painful arthrosis (knee, hip, hand, and finger joints). The most relevant aspects of the DEGRO S2e Consensus Guideline Radiation Therapy of Benign Diseases 2014 regarding diagnostics, treatment decision, dose prescription as well as performance of radiotherapy and results are summarized. RESULTS: For all indications mentioned above, retrospective and some prospective analyses have shown remarkable effects in terms of pain relief. Nevertheless, the Level of Evidence (LoE) and the Grade of Recommendation (GR) vary: LoE 1b-4 and GR A-C. CONCLUSION: Low-dose radiotherapy for painful degenerative skeletal disorders is effective in the majority of the patients and therefore it may be a reasonable therapeutic alternative when simple and non-invasive methods have been used without persistent success. For all discussed entities, single fraction doses of 0.5-1.0 Gy and total doses of 3.0-6.0 Gy/series applied with 2-3 fractions per week are recommended.

Radiotherapy for oligometastatic disease in patients with spinal cord compression (MSCC) from relatively radioresistant tumors.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy alone is the most common treatment for metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC). Patients with relatively radioresistant tumors and oligometastatic disease may benefit from more intensive therapies (surgery, high-precision radiotherapy). If such therapies are not available, one can speculate whether patients benefit from dose escalation beyond the standard regimen 30 Gy in ten fractions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Of 206 patients with MSCC from relatively radioresistant tumors (renal cell carcinoma, colorectal cancer, malignant melanoma), 51 had oligometastatic disease (no visceral or other bone metastases, involvement of only one to three vertebrae). In this subset, 21 patients receiving 30 Gy in ten fractions were retrospectively compared to 30 patients receiving higher doses. Seven further potential prognostic factors were investigated: age, gender, tumor type, performance status, interval from tumor diagnosis to radiotherapy of MSCC, pretreatment ambulatory status, and time developing motor deficits before radiotherapy. RESULTS: Motor function improved in 52% of patients after 30 Gy and 40% after higher doses (p = 0.44). On multivariate analysis, functional outcome was associated with interval from tumor diagnosis to radiotherapy (p = 0.020). 1-year local control rates were 84% after 30 Gy and 82% after higher doses (p = 0.75). No factor was associated with local control. 1-year survival rates were 76% after 30 Gy and 63% after higher doses (p = 0.52). On multivariate analysis, survival was associated with performance status (p = 0.022) and interval from tumor diagnosis to radiotherapy (p = 0.039), and almost with pretreatment ambulatory status (p = 0.069). CONCLUSION: Dose escalation beyond 30 Gy in ten fractions did not improve motor function, local control, and survival in MSCC patients with oligometastatic disease from relatively radioresistant tumors.

Selenium in Radiation Oncology-15 Years of Experiences in Germany.

Introduction: Se measurement and supplementation in radiation oncology is a controversial issue. The German Working Group Trace Elements and Electrolytes in Oncology (AKTE) has conducted a number of studies on this issue, which are summarized in this review. Strategies have been tested and developed, aiming to stratify the patients with a potential need for supplemental Se and how best to monitor Se supplementation with respect to health effects and risks. Methods: We analyzed blood and tissue Se-levels of different tumor patients (n = 512). Two randomized phase III clinical studies were conducted for testing a potential radioprotective effect of supplemental Se during radiation therapy in patients with uterine cancer (n = 81) and head and neck tumor patients (n = 39). Results: A relative Se deficit in whole blood or serum was detected in the majority of tumor patients (carcinomas of the uterus, head and neck, lung, rectal or prostate cancer). In prostate cancer, tissue Se concentrations were relatively elevated in the carcinoma centre as compared to the surrounding compartment or as compared to tumor samples from patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Adjuvant Se supplementation successfully corrected Se-deficiency in the patients analyzed and decreased radiotherapy-induced diarrhea in a randomized study of radiotherapy patients with carcinomas of the uterus. Survival data imply that Se supplementation did not interfere with radiation success. Some positive effects of supplemental Se in the prevention of ageusia (loss of taste) and dysphagia due to radiotherapy were noted in a second randomized trial in patients with head and neck cancer. We have not observed any adverse effects of supplemental Se in our studies. Conclusions: Se supplementation yielded promising results concerning radioprotection in tumor patients and should be considered as a promising adjuvant treatment option in subjects with a relative Se deficit.

Whole Blood Selenium Levels and Selenium Supplementation in Patients Treated in a Family Doctor Practice in Golßen (State of Brandenburg, Germany): A Laboratory Study.

INTRODUCTION: The supply of selenium (Se) varies widely in Germany. Therefore, a laboratory study was conducted in patients treated at a family doctor practice in Brandenburg, Germany, to determine whether there is a general Se deficiency in this area; specifically, whether Se concentrations differ with age, sex, or presence of cancer. Moreover, we tested the effects of a Se supplementation on whole blood Se levels (WBSL). METHODS: In 2006, WBSL were analyzed in 871 patients (496 females, 375 males, median age: 67 years). Of these, 143 (78 females, 65 males) had cancer and were in an aftercare situation. From 2006 to 2012, 317 patients (76 with tumors, 241 without tumors) received continuous Se supplementation with sodium selenite (300 µg per day) and annual WBSL measurements. WBSL were compared by Student's t test for paired and independent samples. RESULTS: The initial WBSL of all patients was 97.2 ± 20.7 µg/L (mean ± SD). WBSL did not differ with regard to age or sex, but patients with cancer had the lowest WBSL. Se supplementation increased mean WBSL in both patients with (to 128.5 µg/L) and without (to 119.52 µg/L) cancer ( P < .001). DISCUSSION: Patients with cancer displayed significantly lower WBSL than patients without cancer, indicating a negative effect of tumors on Se uptake, absorption, or metabolism. Significant influences of age or sex were not observed. Selenite supplementation efficiently improved WBSL to concentrations considered necessary for health benefits.

Radiotherapy for calcaneodynia, achillodynia, painful gonarthrosis, bursitis trochanterica, and painful shoulder syndrome - Early and late results of a prospective clinical quality assessment.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this prospective clinical quality assessment was to evaluate the short-term and long-term efficacy of low dose radiotherapy (RT) for calcaneodynia, achillodynia, painful gonarthrosis, painful bursitis trochanterica, and painful shoulder syndrome. METHODS: Between October 2011 and October 2013, patients with calcaneodynia, achillodynia, painful gonarthrosis, painful bursitis trochanterica, and painful shoulder syndrome were recruited for this prospective clinical quality assessment. Single doses of 0.5-1.0 Gy and a total dose of 6.0 Gy per series were used. Pain was measured before and directly after RT (early response) with a visual analogue scale (VAS). Additionally, pain relief was measured with the four-scale pain score according to "von Pannewitz" (VPS) immediately at the end of RT and during follow-up. Within this context we defined a good response as complete pain relief and markedly improved. The assessment of the long-term efficacy was carried out by a telephone survey. RESULTS: 703 evaluable patients (461 female, 242 male) with a mean age of 63.2 years (28-96) were recruited for this prospective clinical quality assessment. In 254 patients RT was performed with the linear accelerator, 449 patients received orthovoltage radiotherapy. After a median follow-up of 33 months (3-60) 437 patients could be reached for evaluation of follow up results. The mean VAS value before treatment was 6.63 (1.9-10) and immediately on completion of RT 4.51 (0-10) (p < 0,001). Concerning the VPS immediately on completion of RT, a good response could be achieved in 264/703 patients (37.6%), and with the follow up in 255/437 patients (58.4%) (p < 0.001). Only in patients with gonarthrosis we could not observe a significantly improved long-term success in comparison to the results immediately after RT (30.2% versus 29.9%). CONCLUSION: Low dose RT is a very effective treatment for the management of calcaneodynia, achillodynia, painful gonarthrosis, painful bursitis trochanterica, and painful shoulder syndrome. Due to the delayed onset of analgesic effects low dose RT results in a significantly improved long-term efficacy in comparison to the results immediately after RT particularly in patients with calcaneodynia, achillodynia, bursitis trochanterica, and shoulder syndrome.

Low-Dose Radiation Therapy for Benign Painful Skeletal Disorders: The Typical Treatment for the Elderly Patient?

PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate the short-term and long-term efficacy of low-dose radiation therapy (RT) for calcaneodynia, achillodynia, painful gonarthrosis, and painful bursitis trochanterica in elderly patients aged ≥70 years. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between October 2011 and October 2013, patients aged ≥70 years with painful degenerative disorders of joints were recruited for a prospective trial. Single doses of 0.5 to 1.0 Gy and a total dose of 6.0 Gy per series were used. Pain was measured before and right after RT (early response) with a 10-point visual analogue scale. Additionally, pain relief was measured with the 4-point pain scale according to "von Pannewitz" immediately on completion of RT and during follow-up. We defined a good response as complete pain relief and markedly improved. RESULTS: A total of 166 evaluable patients with a mean age of 76.6 years (range, 70-90 years) with calcaneodynia (n=51), achillodynia (n=8), painful gonarthrosis (n=80), and painful bursitis trochanterica (n=27) were recruited. The mean visual analogue scale value before treatment was 6.38 and immediately upon completion of RT was 4.49 (P<.001). Concerning the von Pannewitz status immediately on completion of RT, 6 patients were free of pain, 56 were much improved, 47 reported slight improvement, and 57 experienced no change. After a median follow-up of 29 months, 109 patients could be reached for evaluation of follow-up results. Thirty-three patients were free of pain, 21 had marked improvement, 18 had some improvement, and 37 experienced no change. Therefore, a good response immediately on completion of RT could be achieved in 62 of 166 patients, and with the follow-up in 54 of 109 patients (P=.001). CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose RT is a very effective treatment for the management of painful degenerative disorders of joints in the elderly. Low-dose RT offers a low-risk, genuinely conservative, noninvasive therapeutic alternative for elderly patients.

Radiotherapy With 4 Gy × 5 Versus 3 Gy × 10 for Metastatic Epidural Spinal Cord Compression: Final Results of the SCORE-2 Trial (ARO 2009/01).

PURPOSE: To compare short-course radiotherapy (RT) (4 Gy × 5) to longer-course RT (3 Gy × 10) for metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (MESCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two-hundred three patients with MESCC and poor to intermediate expected survival were randomly assigned to 4 Gy × 5 in 1 week (n = 101) or 3 Gy × 10 in 2 weeks (n = 102). Patients were stratified according to ambulatory status, time developing motor deficits, and primary tumor type. Seventy-eight and 77 patients, respectively, were evaluable for the primary end point, 1-month overall response regarding motor function defined as improvement or no further progression of motor deficits. Other study end points included ambulatory status, local progression-free survival, and overall survival. End points were evaluated immediately after RT and at 1, 3, and 6 months thereafter. RESULTS: At 1 month, overall response rates regarding motor function were 87.2% after 4 Gy × 5 and 89.6% after 3 Gy × 10 (P = .73). Improvement rates were 38.5% and 44.2%, respectively, no further progression rates 48.7% and 45.5%, respectively, and deterioration rates 12.8% and 10.4%, respectively (P = .44). Ambulatory rates at 1 month were 71.8% and 74.0%, respectively (P = .86). At other times after RT, the results were also not significantly different. Six-month local progression-free survival was 75.2% after 4 Gy × 5 and 81.8% after 3 Gy × 10 (P = .51); 6-month overall survival was 42.3% and 37.8% (P = .68). CONCLUSION: Short-course RT with 4 Gy × 5 was not significantly inferior to 3 Gy × 10 in patients with MESCC and poor to intermediate expected survival.

Multicenter, phase III trial comparing selenium supplementation with observation in gynecologic radiation oncology: follow-up analysis of the survival data 6 years after cessation of randomization.

PURPOSE: In 2010, we reported that selenium (Se) supplementation during radiation therapy (RT) is effective for increasing blood Se levels in Se-deficient cervical and uterine cancer patients, and reduced the number of episodes and severity of RT-induced diarrhea. In the current study, we examine whether of Se supplementation during adjuvant RT affects long-term survival of these patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Former patients were identified and questioned with respect to their health and well-being. RESULTS: A total of 81 patients were randomized in the initial supplementation study, 39 of whom received Se (selenium group, SeG) and 42 of whom served as controls (control group, CG). When former patients were reidentified after a median follow-up of 70 months (range = 0-136), the actuarial 10-year disease-free survival rate in the SeG was 80.1% compared to 83.2% in the CG (P = .65), and the actuarial 10-year overall survival rate of patients in the SeG was 55.3% compared to 42.7% in the CG (P = .09). CONCLUSIONS: Our extended follow-up analysis demonstrates that Se supplementation had no influence on the effectiveness of the anticancer irradiation therapy and did not negatively affect patients' long-term survival. In view of its positive effects on RT-induced diarrhea, we consider Se supplementation to be a meaningful and beneficial adjuvant treatment in Se-deficient cervical and uterine cancer patients while undergoing pelvic radiation therapy.

Impact of treatment planning target volumen (PTV) size on radiation induced diarrhoea following selenium supplementation in gynecologic radiation oncology--a subgroup analysis of a multicenter, phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: In a previous analysis (Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 70:828-835,2010), we assessed whether an adjuvant supplementation with selenium (Se) improves Se status and reduces the radiation-induced side-effects of patients treated by adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) for cervical and uterine cancer. Now, a potential relation between the planning target volume (PTV) of the RT and the Se effect concerning radiation induced diarrhoea was evaluated in detail. METHODS: Whole blood Se concentrations had been measured in patients with cervical (n=11) and uterine cancer (n=70) after surgical treatment, during, and at the end of RT. Patients with initial Se concentrations of less than 84 µg/l were categorized as Se-deficient and randomized before RT to receive Se (as sodium selenite) per os on the days of RT, or to receive no supplement during RT. Diarrhoea was graded according to the Common Toxicity Criteria system (CTC, Version 2a). The evaluation of the PTV of the RT was ascertained with the help of a specialised computer-assisted treatment planning software used for radiation planning procedure. RESULTS: A total of 81 patients had been randomized for the initial supplementation study, 39 of which received Se [selenium group, SeG] and 42 serving as controls [control group, CG]. Mean Se levels did not differ between SeG and CG upon study initiation, but were significantly higher in the SeG compared to the CG at the end of RT. The actuarial incidence of at least CTC 2 radiation induced diarrhoea in the SeG was 20.5% compared to 44.5% in the CG (p=0.04). The median PTV in both groups was 1302 ml (916-4608). With a PTV of <= 1302 ml (n=41) the actuarial incidence of at least CTC 2 diarrhoea in the SeG was 22.3% (4 of 18 patients) compared to 34.8% (8 of 23 patients) in the CG (p=0.50). In patients with a PTV of > 1302 ml (n=40) the actuarial incidence of at least CTC 2 diarrhoea in the SeG was 19.1% (4 of 21 patients) versus 52.6% (10 of 19 patients) in the CG (p=0.046). CONCLUSIONS: Se supplementation during RT was effective to improve blood Se status in Se-deficient cervical and uterine cancer patients, and reduces episodes and severity of RT-induced diarrhoea. This effect was most pronounced and significant in patients with large PTV (> 1302 ml).

Final results of a prospective study comparing the local control of short-course and long-course radiotherapy for metastatic spinal cord compression.

PURPOSE: Many patients with metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC) live long enough to develop a recurrence in the irradiated spinal area. This is the first prospective study that has compared local control of different radiotherapy schedules for MSCC. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 265 patients treated with radiotherapy alone were included in this prospective nonrandomized study. The primary goal was to compare local control from short-course (1 × 8 Gy/5 × 4 Gy, n = 131) and long-course radiotherapy (10 × 3 Gy/15 × 2.5 Gy/20 × 2 Gy, n = 134). Secondary end points were motor function and survival. The analysis of local control (no MSCC recurrence in the irradiated spinal area) included the 224 patients with improvement or no change of motor deficits during radiotherapy. Eleven additional factors were evaluated for outcomes. RESULTS: One-year local control was 61% after short-course and 81% after long-course radiotherapy (p = 0.005). On multivariate analysis (MVA), improved local control was associated with long-course radiotherapy (p = 0.018). Motor function improved in 37% after short-course and 39% after long-course radiotherapy (p = 0.95). Improved motor function was associated with better performance status (p = 0.015), favorable tumor type (p = 0.034), and slower development of motor deficits (p < 0.001). One-year survival rates were 23% after short-course and 30% after long-course radiotherapy (p = 0.28). On MVA, improved survival was associated with better performance status (p < 0.001), no visceral metastases (p < 0.001), involvement of only one to three vertebrae (p = 0.040), ambulatory status (p = 0.038), and bisphosphonate administration after radiotherapy (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Long-course radiotherapy was associated with better local control, similar functional outcome, and similar survival compared to short-course radiotherapy. Patients with a relatively favorable expected survival should receive long-course radiotherapy.

Surgery followed by radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for metastatic spinal cord compression from unfavorable tumors.

PURPOSE: Despite a previously published randomized trial, controversy exists regarding the benefit of adding surgery to radiotherapy for metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC). It is thought that patients with MSCC from relatively radioresistant tumors or tumors associated with poor functional outcome after radiotherapy alone may benefit from surgery. This study focuses on these tumors. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data from 67 patients receiving surgery plus radiotherapy (S+RT) were matched to 134 patients (1:2) receiving radiotherapy alone (RT). Groups were matched for 10 factors and compared for motor function, ambulatory status, local control, and survival. Additional separate matched-pair analyses were performed for patients receiving direct decompressive surgery plus stabilization of involved vertebrae (DDSS) and patients receiving laminectomy (LE). RESULTS: Improvement of motor function occurred in 22% of patients after S+RT and 16% after RT (p=0.25). Posttreatment ambulatory rates were 67% and 61%, respectively (p=0.68). Of nonambulatory patients, 29% and 19% (p=0.53) regained ambulatory status. One-year local control rates were 85% and 89% (p=0.87). One-year survival rates were 38% and 24% (p=0.20). The matched-pair analysis of patients receiving LE showed no significant differences between both therapies. In the matched-pair analysis of patients receiving DDSS, improvement of motor function occurred more often after DDSS+RT than RT (28% vs. 19%, p=0.024). Posttreatment ambulatory rates were 86% and 67% (p=0.30); 45% and 18% of patients regained ambulatory status (p=0.29). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with MSCC from an unfavorable primary tumor appeared to benefit from DDSS but not LE when added to radiotherapy in terms of improved functional outcome.

Dose escalation for metastatic spinal cord compression in patients with relatively radioresistant tumors.

PURPOSE: Radiotherapy alone is the most common treatment for metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC) from relatively radioresistant tumors such as renal cell carcinoma, colorectal cancer, and malignant melanoma. However, the results of the "standard" regimen 30 Gy/10 fractions need to be improved with respect to functional outcome. This study investigated whether a dose escalation beyond 30 Gy can improve treatment outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 91 patients receiving 30 Gy/10 fractions were retrospectively compared to 115 patients receiving higher doses (37.5 Gy/15 fractions, 40 Gy/20 fractions) for motor function and local control of MSCC. Ten further potential prognostic factors were evaluated: age, gender, tumor type, performance status, number of involved vertebrae, visceral or other bone metastases, interval from tumor diagnosis to radiotherapy, pretreatment ambulatory status, and time developing motor deficits before radiotherapy. RESULTS: Motor function improved in 18% of patients after 30 Gy and in 22% after higher doses (p = 0.81). On multivariate analysis, functional outcome was associated with visceral metastases (p = 0.030), interval from tumor diagnosis to radiotherapy (p = 0.010), and time developing motor deficits (p < 0.001). The 1-year local control rates were 76% after 30 Gy and 80% after higher doses, respectively (p = 0.64). On multivariate analysis, local control was significantly associated with visceral metastases (p = 0.029) and number of involved vertebrae (p = 0.043). CONCLUSIONS: Given the limitations of a retrospective study, escalation of the radiation dose beyond 30 Gy/10 fractions did not significantly improve motor function and local control of MSCC in patients with relatively radioresistant tumors.

Validation of a score predicting post-treatment ambulatory status after radiotherapy for metastatic spinal cord compression.

PURPOSE: A score predicting post-radiotherapy (RT) ambulatory status was developed based on 2,096 retrospectively evaluated metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC) patients. This study aimed to validate the score in a prospective series. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The score included five factors associated with post-RT ambulatory status: tumor type, interval tumor diagnosis to MSCC, visceral metastases, pre-RT motor function, time developing motor deficits. Patients were divided into five groups: 21-28, 29-31, 32-34, 35-37, 38-44 points. In this study, 653 prospectively followed patients were divided into the same groups. Furthermore, the number of prognostic groups was reduced from five to three (21-28, 29-37, 38-44 points). Post-RT ambulatory rates from this series were compared with the retrospective series. Additionally, this series was compared with 104 patients receiving decompressive surgery plus RT (41 laminectomy, 63 laminectomy plus stabilization of vertebrae). RESULTS: In this study, post-RT ambulatory rates were 10.6% (21-28 points), 43.5% (29-31 points), 71.0% (32-34 points), 89.5% (35-37 points), and 98.5% (38-44 points). Ambulatory rates from the retrospective study were 6.2%, 43.5%, 70.0%, 86.1%, and 98.7%. After regrouping, ambulatory rates were 10.6% (21-28 points), 70.9% (29-37 points), and 98.5% (38-44 points) in this series, and 6.2%, 68.4%, and 98.7% in the retrospective series. Ambulatory rates were 0%, 62.5%, and 90.9% in the laminectomy plus RT group, and 14.3%, 83.9%, and 100% in the laminectomy + stabilization plus RT group. CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory rates in the different groups in this study were similar to those in the retrospective study demonstrating the validity of the score. Using only three groups is simpler for clinical routine.

Validation and simplification of a score predicting survival in patients irradiated for metastatic spinal cord compression.

BACKGROUND: Based on an analysis of 1852 retrospectively evaluated patients with metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC), a scoring system was developed to predict survival. This study was performed to validate the scoring system in a new data set. METHODS: The score included 6 prognostic factors: tumor type, interval between tumor diagnosis and MSCC, other bone or visceral metastases, ambulatory status, and duration of motor deficits. Scores ranged between 20 and 45 points, and patients were initially divided into 5 groups: those with 20 to 25 points, those with 26 to 30 points, those with 31 to 35 points, those with 36 to 40 points, and those with 41 to 45 points. To facilitate the clinical use of the score, the patients were regrouped into 3 groups: those with 20 to 30 points, those with 31 to 35 points, and those with 36 to 45 points. In this study, data of 439 new patients were included who were divided into the same prognostic groups as in the preceding study. RESULTS: In this study, the 6-month survival rates were 7% (for those with 20-25 points), 19% (for those with 26-30 points), 56% (for those with 31-35 points), 73% (for those with 36-40 points), and 90% (for those with 41-45 points), respectively (P<.0001). After regrouping, the 6-month survival rates were 14% (for those with 20-30 points), 56% (for those with 31-35 points), and 80% (for those with 36-45 points), respectively, in this study (P<.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In the current study, the difference in 6-month survival between the prognostic groups was found to be as significant as in the preceding study. Thus, this scoring system was considered valid to estimate survival of MSCC patients. The system could have been simplified by including only 3 instead of 5 prognostic groups.

Results of a nationwide survey on radiotherapy of bone metastases in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Assuming interinstitutional differences in the treatment of bone metastases, a survey of German radiotherapy institutions was carried out. The goal was to demonstrate regional strategies in pretherapeutic diagnosis, radiation treatment, and follow-up. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A structured questionnaire (eleven multiple-choice questions, ten tables to complete) was sent to all institutions primarily performing radiotherapy. The reply rate was 63.7% (86/135). RESULTS: The estimated proportion of patients with irradiated bone metastases was 18.2% (5-60%). The overall number of treated patients with bone metastases has increased. 45% of all radiation treatments for bone metastases wer performed in patients with mammary carcinoma, followed by lung carcinoma (17%). Central beam dose calculation was performed in 72% of patients, in other cases computer-assisted planning (23%) and 3-D planning (5%) were carried out. Special techniques (individual shielding, special fixations) were used in 57 institutions in 19.8% of patients. The applied single dose varied between 1 and 10 Gy, and the total dose between 5 and 60 Gy. The majority of institutions vary their treatment schemes. In most institutions, the definitive result assessment followed 4-6 weeks after the end of irradiation. Conventional X-rays play the most important role in evaluation of the radiation result. Approximately a quarter of patients are permanently included in the radiation oncological follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The therapeutic variety corresponds with the greatly varying recommendations in the literature. There were no major differences between private practices, hospitals and university facilities. Considering the standards of diagnosis, treatment, and results assessment, a high quality of palliative treatment can be assumed.