Spine Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy to Three or More Contiguous Vertebral Levels.
local control
multilevel
postoperative
radiosurgery
spine metastases
stereotactic body radiation therapy
stereotactic radiotherapy
toxicity
Journal
Frontiers in oncology
ISSN: 2234-943X
Titre abrégé: Front Oncol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101568867
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
04
04
2022
accepted:
16
05
2022
entrez:
27
6
2022
pubmed:
28
6
2022
medline:
28
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
With survival improving in many metastatic malignancies, spine metastases have increasingly become a source of significant morbidity; achieving durable local control (LC) is critical. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) may offer improved LC and/or symptom palliation. However, due to setup concerns, SBRT is infrequently offered to patients with ≥3 contiguous involved levels. Because data are limited, we sought to evaluate the feasibility, toxicity, and cancer control outcomes of spine SBRT delivered to ≥3 contiguous levels. We retrospectively identified all SBRT courses delivered between 2013 and 2019 at a tertiary care institution for postoperative or intact spine metastases. Radiotherapy was delivered to 14-35 Gy in 1-5 fractions. Patients were stratified by whether they received SBRT to 1-2 or ≥3 contiguous levels. The primary endpoint was 1-year LC and was compared between groups. Factors associated with increased likelihood of local failure (LF) were explored. Acute and chronic toxicity was assessed. In-depth dosimetric data were collected. Overall, 165 patients with 194 SBRT courses were identified [54% were men, median age was 61 years, 93% had Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) ≥70, and median follow-up was 15 months]. One hundred thirteen patients (68%) received treatment to 1-2 and 52 to 3-7 (32%) levels. The 1-year LC was 88% (89% for 1-2 levels vs. 84% for ≥3 levels, p = 0.747). On multivariate analysis, uncontrolled systemic disease was associated with inferior LC for patients with ≥3 treated levels. No other demographic, disease, treatment, or dosimetric variables achieved significance. Rates of new/progressive fracture were equivalent (8% vs. 9.5%, p = 0.839). There were no radiation-induced myelopathy or grade 3+ acute or late toxicities in either group. Coverage of ≥95% of the planning target volume with ≥95% prescription dose was similar between groups (96% 1-2 levels vs. 89% ≥3 levels, p = 0.078). For patients with ≥3 contiguous involved levels, spine SBRT is feasible and may offer excellent LC without significant toxicity. Prospective evaluation is warranted.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
With survival improving in many metastatic malignancies, spine metastases have increasingly become a source of significant morbidity; achieving durable local control (LC) is critical. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) may offer improved LC and/or symptom palliation. However, due to setup concerns, SBRT is infrequently offered to patients with ≥3 contiguous involved levels. Because data are limited, we sought to evaluate the feasibility, toxicity, and cancer control outcomes of spine SBRT delivered to ≥3 contiguous levels.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
We retrospectively identified all SBRT courses delivered between 2013 and 2019 at a tertiary care institution for postoperative or intact spine metastases. Radiotherapy was delivered to 14-35 Gy in 1-5 fractions. Patients were stratified by whether they received SBRT to 1-2 or ≥3 contiguous levels. The primary endpoint was 1-year LC and was compared between groups. Factors associated with increased likelihood of local failure (LF) were explored. Acute and chronic toxicity was assessed. In-depth dosimetric data were collected.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Overall, 165 patients with 194 SBRT courses were identified [54% were men, median age was 61 years, 93% had Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) ≥70, and median follow-up was 15 months]. One hundred thirteen patients (68%) received treatment to 1-2 and 52 to 3-7 (32%) levels. The 1-year LC was 88% (89% for 1-2 levels vs. 84% for ≥3 levels, p = 0.747). On multivariate analysis, uncontrolled systemic disease was associated with inferior LC for patients with ≥3 treated levels. No other demographic, disease, treatment, or dosimetric variables achieved significance. Rates of new/progressive fracture were equivalent (8% vs. 9.5%, p = 0.839). There were no radiation-induced myelopathy or grade 3+ acute or late toxicities in either group. Coverage of ≥95% of the planning target volume with ≥95% prescription dose was similar between groups (96% 1-2 levels vs. 89% ≥3 levels, p = 0.078).
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
For patients with ≥3 contiguous involved levels, spine SBRT is feasible and may offer excellent LC without significant toxicity. Prospective evaluation is warranted.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35756685
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.912804
pmc: PMC9213679
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
912804Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Dibs, Blakaj, Prasad, Olausson, Bourekas, Boulter, Ayan, Cochran, Marras, Mageswaran, Thomas, Lee, Grecula, Raval, Mendel, Scharschmidt, Lonser, Chakravarti, Elder and Palmer.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Med Phys. 1998 Sep;25(9):1739-40
pubmed: 9775381
Neurosurgery. 2021 Apr 15;88(5):1021-1027
pubmed: 33575784
Control Clin Trials. 1996 Aug;17(4):343-6
pubmed: 8889347
Neurosurgery. 2009 Feb;64(2 Suppl):A67-72
pubmed: 19165076
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007 Jan 15;32(2):193-9
pubmed: 17224814
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017 Sep;18(5):225-236
pubmed: 28786235
Lancet Oncol. 2015 Dec;16(16):e595-603
pubmed: 26678212
Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2017 Apr;16(2):231-237
pubmed: 28279146
J Neurosurg Spine. 2012 Jul;17(1):11-8
pubmed: 22578235
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Jun 1;71(2):484-90
pubmed: 18234445
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Aug 1;83(5):e597-605
pubmed: 22608954
Radiat Oncol. 2021 Jan 7;16(1):7
pubmed: 33413492
J Neurosurg. 2004 Nov;101 Suppl 3:413-8
pubmed: 15537198
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Jul 15;71(4):1261-71
pubmed: 18485614
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Jan 1;97(1):64-74
pubmed: 27843035
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Nov 1;84(3):e343-9
pubmed: 22658511
Neurosurgery. 2020 Feb 1;86(2):E164-E172
pubmed: 31541240
Lancet Oncol. 2021 Jul;22(7):1023-1033
pubmed: 34126044
Neurosurg Focus. 2017 Jan;42(1):E6
pubmed: 28041329
J Neurosurg Spine. 2014 Nov;21(5):711-8
pubmed: 25170656
Med Phys. 2010 Aug;37(8):4078-101
pubmed: 20879569
J Neurosurg Spine. 2007 Aug;7(2):151-60
pubmed: 17688054
J Neurosurg Spine. 2012 Dec;17(6):556-64
pubmed: 23020208
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2014 Mar-Apr;4(2):76-81
pubmed: 24890347
Oncologist. 2013 Jun;18(6):744-51
pubmed: 23709750