Meta-Analysis of Stereotactic Body Radiation ThERapy in Nonspine BONE Metastases (MASTER-BONES).

PURPOSE: The efficacy and safety of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for patients with nonspine bone metastases remains in question. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to evaluate SBRT treatment outcomes in nonspine bone metastases. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eligible studies were retrieved from MEDLINE, Embase, Scielo, the Cochrane Library, and annual meeting proceedings through July 6, 2023. We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guideline recommendations. Quantitative synthesis was performed using a random-effects model. Meta-regression was performed to determine correlation between clinical and treatment factors with the local failure (LF) and fracture rate. P values ≤.05 were deemed statistically significant. RESULTS: Seven retrospective studies, with a total of 807 patients (1048 lesions) treated with SBRT were included, with median follow-up ranging from 7.6 to 26.5 months. The most common SBRT sites were pelvis (39.2%), ribs (25.8%), femur (16.7%), and humerus/shoulder region (8.7%). At 1 year, the LF and fracture rate were 7% (95% CI, 5.5%-8.5%; I2 = 0; n = 75/1048) and 5.3% (95% CI, 3%-7.5%; I2 = 0; n = 65/1010). The 2-year cumulative LF incidence was 12.1% (95% CI, 10%-15.5%). The overall survival and progression-free survival at 1 year were 82% (95% CI, 75%-88%; I2 = 82%; n = 746/867) and 33.5% (95% CI, 26%-41%; I2 = 0%; n = 51/152), with a median of 20.2 months (95% CI, 10.9-49.1 months) and 8.3 months (95% CI, 6.3-10.3 months) for overall survival and progression-free survival, respectively. Meta-regression analysis revealed a significant relationship between planning target volume and fracture rate (P < .05). Ribs (2.5%) followed by the femur (1.9%; 95% CI, 0%-6.1%) were the most common fracture sites. The occurrence of pain flare, fatigue, and dermatitis were 7%, 5.4%, and 0.65%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Stereotactic body radiation proves both safety and efficacy for non-spine bone metastases, and although serious complications (grade 3) are rare, one case of grade 5 complication was reported. Careful consideration of target volume is crucial due to its link with a higher fracture risk.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy versus surgery for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: an updated meta-analysis involving 29,511 patients included in comparative studies.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) versus surgery for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) by means of a meta-analysis of comparative studies. METHODS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines, searches were performed on PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library for eligible studies. The meta-analysis compared the hazard ratios (HR) for overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and local control (LC). Subgroup and meta-regression analyses evaluated the association of extent of surgical resection, study publication year, tumor staging, propensity score matching, proportion of chemotherapy use, and proportion of pathological lymph node involvement with CSS and OS. RESULTS: Thirty studies involving 29,511 patients were included (surgery group: 17,146 patients and SBRT group: 12,365 patients). There was a significant difference in favor of surgery vs. SBRT in the 3-year OS (HR = 1.35; 95% CI: 1.22-1.44; I2 = 66%) and 3-year CSS (HR = 1.23; 95% CI: 1.09-1.37; I2 = 17%), but not in the 3-year LC (HR = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.93-1.08; I2 = 19%). In the subgroup analysis for OS, no significant difference between surgery and SBRT groups was observed in the T1N0M0 subgroup (HR = 1.26; 95% CI: 0.95-1.68; I2 = 0%). In subgroup analysis for CSS, no significant difference was detected between the sublobar resection subgroup and the SBRT group (HR = 1.21; 95% CI: 0.96-1.53; I2 = 16%). CONCLUSIONS: Surgery generally resulted in better 3-year OS and CSS than did SBRT; however, publication bias and heterogeneity may have influenced these findings. In contrast, SBRT produced LC results similar to those of surgery regardless of the extent of surgical resection. These findings may have important clinical implications for patients with comorbidities, advanced age, poor pulmonary reserve, and other factors that may contraindicate surgery.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy versus surgery for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: an updated meta-analysis involving 29,511 patients included in comparative studies / Radioterapia estereotáxica corporal vs. cirurgia para câncer de pulmão de células não pequenas em estágio inicial: meta-análise atualizada envolvendo 29.511 pacientes incluídos em estudos comparativos

ABSTRACT Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) versus surgery for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) by means of a meta-analysis of comparative studies. Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines, searches were performed on PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library for eligible studies. The meta-analysis compared the hazard ratios (HR) for overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and local control (LC). Subgroup and meta-regression analyses evaluated the association of extent of surgical resection, study publication year, tumor staging, propensity score matching, proportion of chemotherapy use, and proportion of pathological lymph node involvement with CSS and OS. Results: Thirty studies involving 29,511 patients were included (surgery group: 17,146 patients and SBRT group: 12,365 patients). There was a significant difference in favor of surgery vs. SBRT in the 3-year OS (HR = 1.35; 95% CI: 1.22-1.44; I2 = 66%) and 3-year CSS (HR = 1.23; 95% CI: 1.09-1.37; I2 = 17%), but not in the 3-year LC (HR = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.93-1.08; I2 = 19%). In the subgroup analysis for OS, no significant difference between surgery and SBRT groups was observed in the T1N0M0 subgroup (HR = 1.26; 95% CI: 0.95-1.68; I2 = 0%). In subgroup analysis for CSS, no significant difference was detected between the sublobar resection subgroup and the SBRT group (HR = 1.21; 95% CI: 0.96-1.53; I2 = 16%). Conclusions: Surgery generally resulted in better 3-year OS and CSS than did SBRT; however, publication bias and heterogeneity may have influenced these findings. In contrast, SBRT produced LC results similar to those of surgery regardless of the extent of surgical resection. These findings may have important clinical implications for patients with comorbidities, advanced age, poor pulmonary reserve, and other factors that may contraindicate surgery.

RESUMO Objetivo: Avaliar a eficácia da stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT, radioterapia estereotáxica corporal) vs. cirurgia para câncer de pulmão de células não pequenas em estágio inicial por meio de uma meta-análise de estudos comparativos. Métodos: Seguindo as diretrizes Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses e Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, foram realizadas buscas no PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase e Cochrane Library por estudos elegíveis. A meta-análise comparou as razões de risco (RR) para sobrevida global (SG), sobrevida específica para câncer (SEC) e controle local (CL). As análises de subgrupo e metarregressão avaliaram a associação de extensão da ressecção cirúrgica, ano de publicação do estudo, estadiamento do tumor, correspondência de escore de propensão, porcentagem de quimioterapia e porcentagem de acometimento linfonodal com SEC e SG. Resultados: Trinta estudos envolvendo 29.511 pacientes foram incluídos (grupo cirurgia: 17.146 pacientes e grupo SBRT: 12.365 pacientes). Houve diferença significativa a favor da cirurgia vs. SBRT na SG em 3 anos (RR = 1,35; IC95%: 1,22-1,44; I2 = 66%) e na SEC em 3 anos (RR = 1,23; IC95%: 1,09-1,37; I2 = 17%), mas não no CL em 3 anos (RR = 0,97; IC95%: 0,93-1,08; I2 = 19%). Na análise de subgrupo para SG, nenhuma diferença significativa entre os grupos cirurgia e SBRT foi observada no subgrupo T1N0M0 (RR = 1,26; IC95%: 0,95-1,68; I2 = 0%). Na análise de subgrupo para SEC, nenhuma diferença significativa foi detectada entre o subgrupo ressecção sublobar e o grupo SBRT (RR = 1,21; IC95%: 0,96-1,53; I2 = 16%). Conclusões: A cirurgia geralmente resultou em melhor SG e SEC em 3 anos do que a SBRT; no entanto, viés de publicação e heterogeneidade podem ter influenciado esses achados. Já a SBRT produziu resultados de CL semelhantes aos da cirurgia, independentemente da extensão da ressecção cirúrgica. Esses achados podem ter implicações clínicas importantes para pacientes com comorbidades, idade avançada, baixa reserva pulmonar e outros fatores que possam contraindicar a cirurgia.

Management of elderly patients with glioblastoma: current status with a focus on the post-operative radiation therapy.

Glioblastoma (GBM) is one of the most malignant primary intracranial neoplasms. This review aims to summarize the treatment of elderly patients with newly diagnosed GBM, with a focus on the radiation therapy (RT) approach. The available literature was reviewed, and we describe the most significant results relating to the post-operative approach of elderly GBM patients. Age limitations in randomized phase III studies have restricted the inclusion of elderly patients, and consequently, limited the generalizability of their results to this patient subset. Chronological age should not prohibit the best treatment, but instead, treatment decisions should consider patient functional status. RT showed efficacy and safety in the elderly population, without compromising quality of life. Hypofractionated RT is not inferior to standard RT. Reduction of overall RT schedule length mitigates the difficulties faced by elderly patients, improving treatment adherence. The addition of both concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide to standard RT is superior to either modality alone and should be the treatment of choice in the subset of patients with good/very good prognosis. It is reasonable to offer hypofractionated RT or temozolomide alone for poor prognosis, and best supportive care (BSC) for very poor prognosis elderly GBM patients. Although combined modality treatment is well established for the management of the good prognosis population, different RT schemes require further investigation with randomized controlled trials to determine the best regimen. A robust analysis of the molecular signatures of GBM in elderly patients might reveal opportunities for clinical protocol modifications to customize management in this group of patients.