Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Versus Conventional Radiation Therapy for Painful Spinal Metastases: A Comparative Analysis of Randomized Trials and Practical Considerations.
Gal, Omer; Rothrock, Robert J; Gutierrez, Alonso N; Mehta, Minesh P; Kotecha, Rupesh.
Afiliação
  • Gal O; Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, Florida.
  • Rothrock RJ; Department of Neurosurgery, Miami Neuroscience Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, Florida; Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Florida International University, Miami, Florida.
  • Gutierrez AN; Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, Florida; Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Florida International University, Miami, Florida.
  • Mehta MP; Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, Florida; Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Florida International University, Miami, Florida.
  • Kotecha R; Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, Florida; Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Florida International University, Miami, Florida. Electronic address: rupeshk@baptisthealth.net.
Pract Radiat Oncol ; 2024 Jul 06.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38977158
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

Recent randomized trials have compared the efficacy and safety of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) with those of standard conventional external beam radiation therapy (cEBRT) for the treatment of painful spinal metastases. We conducted a composite analysis of these trials in order to inform current practice using pooled outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS Data from each randomized trial were abstracted from the final publications with biologically effective doses (BEDs) recalculated for SBRT and cEBRT. Primary outcome measures were overall pain response (OR) and complete pain response (CR) rates at 1, 3, and 6 months and rates of vertebral compression fracture. Random effects models were used to estimate primary outcome measures, and meta-regression assessed the effect of BED.

RESULTS:

Four prospective randomized clinical trials published between 2018 and 2024 were included, with a total of 686 patients (383 and 303 in the SBRT and cEBRT groups, respectively). Dose and fraction (fx) number ranged from 24 Gy/1 fx to 48.5 Gy/10 fx for the SBRT group (median BED using an α-to-ß ratio of 10, 50 Gy) and from 8 Gy/1 fx to 30 Gy/10 fx for the cEBRT group (median BED using an α-to-ß ratio of 10, 28 Gy). The 1-, 3-, and 6-month OR rates for SBRT and cEBRT were similar 53.6%, 52.4%, and 58.8% versus 48.4%, 47.9%, and 43.8%, respectively (p > .05). The 3-month CR rate was significantly higher for SBRT than for cEBRT (31.9% vs 14.8%; risk ratio, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.48-3.45; p < .001), but not the 6-month rate (34.4% vs 16.3%; risk ratio, 1.83; 95% CI, 0.74-4.53; p = .194). Vertebral compression fracture rates were similar at 17.3% and 18.4% for SBRT and cEBRT, respectively. No significant dose-dependent effect was observed with increasing BED for any efficacy or safety outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS:

OR rates are similar, but CR rates appear higher with SBRT than with cEBRT, yet no dose-dependent effects were identified despite approximately 1.8 × BED dose with SBRT.

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article