Stereotactic body radiotherapy versus conventional external beam radiotherapy in patients with painful spinal metastases: an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Conventional external beam radiotherapy is the standard palliative treatment for spinal metastases; however, complete response rates for pain are as low as 10-20%. Stereotactic body radiotherapy delivers high-dose, ablative radiotherapy. We aimed to compare complete response rates for pain after stereotactic body radiotherapy or conventional external beam radiotherapy in patients with painful spinal metastasis. METHODS: This open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial was done at 13 hospitals in Canada and five hospitals in Australia. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years and older, and had painful (defined as ≥2 points with the Brief Pain Inventory) MRI-confirmed spinal metastasis, no more than three consecutive vertebral segments to be included in the treatment volume, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, a Spinal Instability Neoplasia Score of less than 12, and no neurologically symptomatic spinal cord or cauda equina compression. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a web-based, computer-generated allocation sequence to receive either stereotactic body radiotherapy at a dose of 24 Gy in two daily fractions or conventional external beam radiotherapy at a dose of 20 Gy in five daily fractions using standard techniques. Treatment assignment was done centrally by use of a minimisation method to achieve balance for the stratification factors of radiosensitivity, the presence or absence of mass-type tumour (extraosseous or epidural disease extension, or both) on imaging, and centre. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a complete response for pain at 3 months after radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was analysed in the intention-to-treat population and all safety and quality assurance analyses were done in the as-treated population (ie, all patients who received at least one fraction of radiotherapy). The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02512965. FINDINGS: Between Jan 4, 2016, and Sept 27, 2019, 229 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive conventional external beam radiotherapy (n=115) or stereotactic body radiotherapy (n=114). All 229 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The median follow-up was 6·7 months (IQR 6·3-6·9). At 3 months, 40 (35%) of 114 patients in the stereotactic body radiotherapy group, and 16 (14%) of 115 patients in the conventional external beam radiotherapy group had a complete response for pain (risk ratio 1·33, 95% CI 1·14-1·55; p=0·0002). This significant difference was maintained in multivariable-adjusted analyses (odds ratio 3·47, 95% CI 1·77-6·80; p=0·0003). The most common grade 3-4 adverse event was grade 3 pain (five [4%] of 115 patients in the conventional external beam radiotherapy group vs five (5%) of 110 patients in the stereotactic body radiotherapy group). No treatment-related deaths were observed. INTERPRETATION: Stereotactic body radiotherapy at a dose of 24 Gy in two daily fractions was superior to conventional external beam radiotherapy at a dose of 20 Gy in five daily fractions in improving the complete response rate for pain. These results suggest that use of conformal, image-guided, stereotactically dose-escalated radiotherapy is appropriate in the palliative setting for symptom control for selected patients with painful spinal metastases, and an increased awareness of the need for specialised and multidisciplinary involvement in the delivery of end-of-life care is needed. FUNDING: Canadian Cancer Society and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

An Economic Analysis of SC24 in Canada: A Randomized Study of SBRT Compared With Conventional Palliative RT for Spinal Metastases.

PURPOSE: The Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG) Symptom Control 24 protocol (SC.24) was a multicenter randomized controlled phase 2/3 trial conducted in Canada and Australia. Patients with painful spinal metastases were randomized to either 24 Gy/2 stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) or 20 Gy/5 conventional external beam radiation therapy (CRT). The study met its primary endpoint and demonstrated superior complete pain response rates at 3 months following SBRT (35%) versus CRT (14%). SBRT planning and delivery is resource intensive. Given its benefits in SC.24, we performed an economic analysis to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of SBRT compared with CRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The trial recruited 229 patients. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using a Markov model taking into account observed survival, treatments costs, retreatment, and quality of life over the lifetime of the patient. The EORTC-QLU-C10D was used to determine quality of life values. Transition probabilities for outcomes were from available patient data. Health system costs were from the Canadian health care perspective and were based on 2021 Canadian dollars (CAD). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was expressed as the ratio of incremental cost to quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The impact of parameter uncertainty was investigated using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The base case for SBRT compared with CRT had an ICER of $9,040CAD per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the ICER was most sensitive to variations in the utility assigned to "No local failure" ($5,457CAD to $241,051CAD per QALY), adopting low and high estimates of utility and the cost of the SBRT (ICERs ranging from $7345-$123,361CAD per QALY). It was more robust to variations in assumptions around survival and response rate. CONCLUSIONS: SBRT is associated with higher upfront costs than CRT. The ICER shows that, within the Canadian health care system, SBRT with 2 fractions is likely to be more cost-effective than CRT.