Search

Purpose: We previously demonstrated that 48% of patients with pain at sites of previously irradiated bone metastases benefit from reirradiation. It is unknown whether alleviating pain also improves patient perception of quality of life (QOL)., Patients and Methods: We used the database of a randomized trial comparing radiation treatment dose fractionation schedules to evaluate whether response, determined using the International Consensus Endpoint (ICE) and Brief Pain Inventory pain score (BPI-PS), is associated with patient perception of benefit, as measured using the European Organisation for Resesarch and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and functional interference scale of the BPI (BPI-FI). Evaluable patients completed baseline and 2-month follow-up assessments., Results: Among 850 randomly assigned patients, 528 were evaluable for response using the ICE and 605 using the BPI-PS. Using the ICE, 253 patients experienced a response and 275 did not. Responding patients had superior scores on all items of the BPI-FI (ie, general activity, mood, walking ability, normal work, relations with other people, sleep, and enjoyment of life) and improved QOL, as determined by scores on the EORTC QLQ-C30 scales of physical, role, emotional and social functioning, global QOL, fatigue, pain, and appetite. Similar results were obtained using the BPI-PS; observed improvements were typically of lesser magnitude., Conclusion: Patients responding to reirradiation of painful bone metastases experience superior QOL scores and less functional interference associated with pain. Patients should be offered re-treatment for painful bone metastases in the hope of reducing pain severity as well as improving QOL and pain interference., (© 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Background: Although repeat radiation treatment has been shown to palliate pain in patients with bone metastases from multiple primary origin sites, data for the best possible dose fractionation schedules are lacking. We aimed to assess two dose fractionation schedules in patients with painful bone metastases needing repeat radiation therapy., Methods: We did a multicentre, non-blinded, randomised, controlled trial in nine countries worldwide. We enrolled patients 18 years or older who had radiologically confirmed, painful (ie, pain measured as ≥2 points using the Brief Pain Inventory) bone metastases, had received previous radiation therapy, and were taking a stable dose and schedule of pain-relieving drugs (if prescribed). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either 8 Gy in a single fraction or 20 Gy in multiple fractions by a central computer-generated allocation sequence using dynamic minimisation to conceal assignment, stratified by previous radiation fraction schedule, response to initial radiation, and treatment centre. Patients, caregivers, and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall pain response at 2 months, which was defined as the sum of complete and partial pain responses to treatment, assessed using both Brief Pain Inventory scores and changes in analgesic consumption. Analysis was done by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00080912., Findings: Between Jan 7, 2004, and May 24, 2012, we randomly assigned 425 patients to each treatment group. 19 (4%) patients in the 8 Gy group and 12 (3%) in the 20 Gy group were found to be ineligible after randomisation, and 140 (33%) and 132 (31%) patients, respectively, were not assessable at 2 months and were counted as missing data in the intention-to-treat analysis. In the intention-to-treat population, 118 (28%) patients allocated to 8 Gy treatment and 135 (32%) allocated to 20 Gy treatment had an overall pain response to treatment (p=0·21; response difference of 4·00% [upper limit of the 95% CI 9·2, less than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10%]). In the per-protocol population, 116 (45%) of 258 patients and 134 (51%) of 263 patients, respectively, had an overall pain response to treatment (p=0·17; response difference 6·00% [upper limit of the 95% CI 13·2, greater than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10%]). The most frequently reported acute radiation-related toxicities at 14 days were lack of appetite (201 [56%] of 358 assessable patients who received 8 Gy vs 229 [66%] of 349 assessable patients who received 20 Gy; p=0·011) and diarrhoea (81 [23%] of 357 vs 108 [31%] of 349; p=0·018). Pathological fractures occurred in 30 (7%) of 425 patients assigned to 8 Gy and 20 (5%) of 425 assigned to 20 Gy (odds ratio [OR] 1·54, 95% CI 0·85-2·75; p=0·15), and spinal cord or cauda equina compressions were reported in seven (2%) of 425 versus two (<1%) of 425, respectively (OR 3·54, 95% CI 0·73-17·15; p=0·094)., Interpretation: In patients with painful bone metastases requiring repeat radiation therapy, treatment with 8 Gy in a single fraction seems to be non-inferior and less toxic than 20 Gy in multiple fractions; however, as findings were not robust in a per-protocol analysis, trade-offs between efficacy and toxicity might exist., Funding: Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, US National Cancer Institute, Cancer Council Australia, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Dutch Cancer Society, and Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background and Purpose: In the prospectively, randomized Dutch Bone Metastasis Study on the effect of a single fraction of 8 Gy versus 24 Gy in six fractions on painful bone metastases, 28% of the patients survived for more than 1 year. Purpose of the present study was to analyze the palliative effect of radiotherapy in long-term surviving patients, and to identify prognostic factors for survival., Material and Methods: Response rates were compared in all patients surviving>52 weeks. The Cox proportional hazards model stratified by primary tumour was used for multivariate (MV) analyses of prognostic factors for survival., Results: In 320 patients surviving>52 weeks, responses were 87% after 8 Gy and 85% after 24 Gy (P=0.54). Duration of response and progression rates were similar. For all primary tumours, prognostic factors for survival were a good Karnofsky Performance Score, no visceral metastases, and non-opioid analgesics intake (all factors, MV P<0.001)., Conclusions: Single fraction radiotherapy should be the standard dose schedule for all patients with painful bone metastases, including patients with an expected favourable survival. General prognosticators as the Karnofsky Performance Score and metastatic tumour load are useful in predicting survival.

Purpose: To answer the question whether a single fraction of radiotherapy that is considered more convenient to the patient is as effective as a dose of multiple fractions for palliation of painful bone metastases., Patients: 1171 patients were randomised to receive either 8 Gy x 1 (n = 585) or 4 Gy x 6 (n = 586). The primary tumour was in the breast in 39% of the patients, in the prostate in 23%, in the lung in 25% and in other locations in 13%. Bone metastases were located in the spine (30%), pelvis (36%), femur (10%), ribs (8%), humerus (6%) and other sites (10%)., Method: Questionnaires were mailed to collect information on pain, analgesics consumption, quality of life and side effects during treatment. The main endpoint was pain measured on a pain scale from 0 (no pain at all) to 10 (worst imaginable pain). Costs per treatment schedule were estimated., Results: On average, patients participated in the study for 4 months. Median survival was 7 months. Response was defined as a decrease of at least two points as compared to the initial pain score. The difference in response between the two treatment groups proved not significant and stayed well within the margin of 10%. Overall, 71% experienced a response at some time during the first year. An analysis of repeated measures confirmed that the two treatment schedules were equivalent in terms of palliation. With regard to pain medication, quality of life and side effects no differences between the two treatment groups were found. The total number of retreatments was 188 (16%). This number was 147 (25%) in the 8 Gy x 1 irradiation group and 41 (7%) in the 4 Gy x 6 group. It was shown that the level of pain was an important reason to retreat. There were also indications that doctors were more willing to retreat patients in the single fraction group because time to retreatment was substantially shorter in this group and the preceding pain score was lower. Unexpectedly, more pathological fractures were observed in the single fraction group, but the absolute percentage was low. In a cost-analysis, the costs of the 4 Gy x 6 and the 8 Gy x 1 treatment schedules were calculated at 2305 and 1734 Euro respectively. Including the costs of retreatment reduced this 25% cost difference to only 8%. The saving of radiotherapy capacity, however, was considered the major economic advantage of the single dose schedule., Conclusion: The global analysis of the Dutch study indicates the equality of a single fraction as compared to a 6 fraction treatment in patients with painful bone metastases provided that 4 times more retreatments are accepted in the single dose group. This equality is also shown in long term survivors. A more detailed analysis of the study is in progress.