Dose-intensified stereotactic body radiotherapy for painful vertebral metastases: A randomized phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this randomised study was to determine whether dose-intensified stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for painful vertebral metastases results in increased rates of pain improvement compared with conventional external beam radiotherapy (cEBRT) (control) 6 months after treatment. METHODS: This randomized, controlled phase 3 trial was conducted between November 2016 and January 2023, when it was stopped early. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older; had one or two painful, stable, or potentially unstable vertebral metastases; and had a life expectancy of 1 year or longer according to the investigator's estimates. Patients received 48.5 grays (Gy) in 10 fractions (with epidural involvement) or 40 Gy in five fractions (without epidural involvement) in the SBRT group and 30 Gy in 10 fractions or 20 Gy in five fractions in the cEBRT group, respectively. The primary end point was an improvement in the pain score at the treated site by at least 2 points (on a visual analog scale from 0 to 10 points) at 6-month follow-up. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat and per-protocol basis. RESULTS: Of 214 patients who were screened for eligibility, 63 were randomized 1:1 between SBRT (33 patients with 36 metastases) and cEBRT (30 patients with 31 metastases). The median age of all patients was 66 years, and 40 patients were men (63.5%). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the 6-month proportion of patients who had metastases with pain reduction by 2 or more points was significantly higher in the SBRT group versus the control group (69.4% vs. 41.9%, respectively; two-sided p = .02). Changes in opioid medication intake relative to baseline were nonsignificant between the groups. No differences were observed in vertebral compression fracture or adverse event rates between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Dose-intensified SBRT improved pain score more effectively than cEBRT at 6 months.

Randomized self-controlled study comparing open-face vs. closed immobilization masks in fractionated cranial radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To compare patient discomfort and immobilisation performance of open-face and closed immobilization masks in cranial radiotherapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a single-center randomized self-controlled clinical trial. At CT simulation, an open-face and closed mask was made for each patient and treatment plans with identical dose prescription were generated for each mask. Patients were randomised to start treatment with an open-face or closed mask. Masks were switched halfway through the treatment course; every patient was their own control. Patients self-reported discomfort, anxiety and pain using the visual analogue scale (VAS). Inter- and intrafraction set-up variability was measured with planar kV imaging and a surface guided radiotherapy (SGRT) system for the open-face masks. RESULTS: 30 patients with primary or metastatic brain tumors were randomized - 29 completed radiotherapy to a median total dose of 54 Gy (range 30-60 Gy). Mean discomfort VAS score was significantly lower with open-face masks (0.5, standard deviation 1.0) vs. closed masks (3.3, standard deviation 2.9), P < 0.0001. Anxiety and pain VAS scores were significantly lower with open-face masks (P < 0.0001). Closed masks caused more discomfort in infraorbital (P < 0.001) and maxillary (P = 0.02) areas. Two patients and 27 patients preferred closed or open-face masks, respectively. Interfraction longitudinal shifts and roll and yaw rotations were significantly smaller and lateral shifts were significantly larger with closed masks in combination with the laser system (P < 0.05) compared to open masks in combination with a SGRT system. Intrafraction variability did not differ between the masks. CONCLUSIONS: Open-face masks are associated with decreased patient discomfort without compromising patient positioning and immobilisation accuracy.

Disease Control and Late Toxicity in Adaptive Dose Painting by Numbers Versus Nonadaptive Radiation Therapy for Head and Neck Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Phase 2 Trial.

PURPOSE: Local recurrence remains the main cause of death in stage III-IV nonmetastatic head and neck cancer (HNC), with relapse-prone regions within high 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG-PET)-signal gross tumor volume. We investigated if dose escalation within this subvolume combined with a 3-phase treatment adaptation could increase local (LC) and regional (RC) control at equal or minimized radiation-induced toxicity, by comparing adaptive 18F-FDG-PET voxel intensity-based dose painting by numbers (A-DPBN) with nonadaptive standard intensity modulated radiation therapy (S-IMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: This 2-center randomized controlled phase 2 trial assigned (1:1) patients to receive A-DPBN or S-IMRT (+/-chemotherapy). Eligibility: nonmetastatic HNC of oral cavity, oro-/hypopharynx, or larynx, needing radio(chemo)therapy; T1-4N0-3 (exception: T1-2N0 glottic); KPS ≥ 70; ≥18 years; and informed consent. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: 1-year LC and RC. The dose prescription for A-DPBN was intercurrently adapted in 2 steps to an absolute dose-volume limit (≤1.75 cm3 can receive >84 Gy and normalized isoeffective dose >96 Gy) as a safety measure during the study course after 4/7 A-DPBN patients developed ≥G3 mucosal ulcers. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients were randomized (A-DPBN, 47; S-IMRT, 48). Median follow-up was 31 months (IQR, 14-48 months); 29 patients died (17 of cancer progression). A-DPBN resulted in superior LC compared with S-IMRT, with 1- and 2-year LC of 91% and 88% versus 78% and 75%, respectively (hazard ratio, 3.13; 95% CI, 1.13-8.71; P = .021). RC and overall survival were comparable between arms, as was overall grade (G) ≥3 late toxicity (36% vs 20%; P = .1). More ≥G3 late mucosal ulcers were observed in active smokers (29% vs 3%; P = .005) and alcohol users (33% vs 13%; P = .02), independent of treatment arm. Similarly, in the A-DPBN arm, significantly more patients who smoked at diagnosis developed ≥G3 (46% vs 12%; P = .005) and ≥G4 (29% vs 8%; P = .048) mucosal ulcers. One arterial blowout occurred after a G5 mucosal toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: A-DPBN resulted in superior 1- and 2-year LC for HNC compared with S-IMRT. This supports further exploration in multicenter phase 3 trials. It will, however, be challenging to recruit a substantial patient sample for such trials, as concerns have arisen regarding the association of late mucosal ulcers when escalating the dose in continuing smokers.