ﺑﺎﺯﮔﺸﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻔﺤﻪ ﻗﺒﻠﯽ
خرید پکیج
تعداد آیتم قابل مشاهده باقیمانده : 3 مورد
نسخه الکترونیک
medimedia.ir

Radiation therapy for the management of painful bone metastases

Radiation therapy for the management of painful bone metastases
Literature review current through: Jan 2024.
This topic last updated: Jul 06, 2023.

INTRODUCTION — Bone metastases are a common manifestation of distant relapse from many types of solid cancers, especially those arising in the lung, breast, and prostate. As many as 80 percent of patients with solid tumors will develop painful bone metastases to the spine, pelvis, and extremities during the course of their illness [1].

The goals of palliative treatment of bone metastases are pain relief, preservation of function, and maintenance of skeletal integrity. When bone pain is limited to a single or limited number of sites, local field external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) to the painful sites can provide pain relief in approximately 60 to 85 percent of cases, with complete pain response reported in 15 to 58 percent [2]. If symptomatic lesions are widespread, radiopharmaceuticals or hemibody radiation may provide useful palliative alternatives. Although treatment can be effective for patients with mild, moderate, or severe pain, early intervention may be useful in maintaining quality of life and minimizing the side effects of analgesic medications [3].

The use of RT for palliation of painful bone metastases will be reviewed here. Overviews of the clinical presentation and diagnosis of bone metastases and of the treatment approaches for bone metastases are presented separately, as are other aspects of cancer pain management, including the management of patients with epidural spinal cord compression, the use of image-guided thermal ablation for patients with pain from bone metastases that persists or recurs after RT, and management of patients with pathologic or impending pathologic fractures, including the role of kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty for patients with pathologic vertebral fractures. (See "Epidemiology, clinical presentation, and diagnosis of bone metastasis in adults" and "Overview of therapeutic approaches for adult patients with bone metastasis from solid tumors" and "Cancer pain management: General principles and risk management for patients receiving opioids" and "Treatment and prognosis of neoplastic epidural spinal cord compression" and "Image-guided ablation of skeletal metastases" and "Clinical presentation and evaluation of complete and impending pathologic fractures in patients with metastatic bone disease, multiple myeloma, and lymphoma" and "Management of complete and impending pathologic fractures in patients with metastatic bone disease, multiple myeloma, and lymphoma".)

SUPPORTIVE CARE — For all patients with painful bone metastases, supportive care should include adequate analgesia and the use of osteoclast inhibitors to enhance analgesia and to reduce the risk of skeletal-related events (including the need for radiation or surgery to bone, pathologic fractures, spinal cord compression, and hypercalcemia of malignancy).

Opioid therapy is the first-line approach for moderate or severe pain in populations with active cancer, including those with symptomatic bone metastases. Patients with multifocal bone pain usually are managed with a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agent (NSAID), unless they have a specific contraindication to use of these agents, in conjunction with an opioid and usually with an adjuvant analgesic (ie, osteoclast inhibitors, glucocorticoids) used specifically for bone pain. (See "Cancer pain management with opioids: Optimizing analgesia" and "Cancer pain management: Role of adjuvant analgesics (coanalgesics)", section on 'Patients with bone pain'.)

Osteoclast inhibitors (including bisphosphonates and denosumab) are indicated for the management of metastatic bone disease for most patients with solid tumors. Osteoclast inhibitors slow or reverse the progression of skeletal metastases and reduce the likelihood of skeletal-related events. In addition, they also have some analgesic benefit, although it is modest.

The vast majority of the data regarding the benefits of osteoclast inhibitors for prostate cancer were generated in the castration-resistant state; hence, for males with bone metastases from prostate cancer, the use of osteoclast inhibitors is generally restricted to those with castration-resistant disease. (See "Bone metastases in advanced prostate cancer: Management", section on 'Castration-resistant disease'.)

For patients in whom skeletal-related events are unlikely (eg, those with minimal bone tumor burden) and for those with a limited expected survival (eg, in the setting of widespread and progressive visceral metastases), treatment with osteoclast inhibitors should be considered on a case-by-case basis. This subject, as well as other adjuvant analgesics, is discussed in detail elsewhere. (See "Osteoclast inhibitors for patients with bone metastases from breast, prostate, and other solid tumors" and "Cancer pain management: Role of adjuvant analgesics (coanalgesics)", section on 'Patients with bone pain'.)

Finally, prophylactic antiemetics are very useful when treating metastases in the lumbar spine or pelvic bones when the radiation field includes the stomach or intestines.

PATIENTS WITH A SINGLE OR LIMITED NUMBER OF PAINFUL BONE METASTASES

External beam radiation therapy — For patients with multiple painful bone metastases or oligometastatic disease with an estimated survival of less than six months, we recommend external beam RT (EBRT). RT is effective in partially or completely relieving pain in a majority of patients with bone metastases, although a transient worsening of pain may occur in some patients [4]. This typically occurs in the first few days after RT, and the pain generally lasts one to two days.

The role of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for painful bone metastases is evolving, and SBRT may be preferred over EBRT in specific settings:

One setting in which SBRT may be preferred over EBRT is in the definitive treatment of patients with symptomatic bone metastases from relatively radioresistant neoplasms (eg, renal cell cancer, melanoma, sarcoma), especially in the setting of vertebral metastases with epidural extension but no high-grade epidural spinal cord compression. This subject is discussed in detail elsewhere. (See "Treatment and prognosis of neoplastic epidural spinal cord compression", section on 'Stereotactic body radiotherapy'.)

Another setting in which SBRT may be considered is in patients with oligometastatic bone metastases (1 to 5 metastases), who have an estimated survival of greater than six months and for whom SBRT can be safely delivered. Nomograms to assist in estimating survival in patients with metastatic cancer referred for RT for bone metastases are available [5,6]. (See 'Stereotactic radiation therapy' below.)

Single-dose versus fractionated treatment — For most patients with uncomplicated painful bone metastases (ie, without a substantial soft tissue component or fracture/impending fracture), we suggest using a single fraction of 8 Gy to the involved area. This approach provides equal palliation with improved patient convenience and cost-effectiveness compared with fractionated schedules, although retreatment is needed more frequently. For patients with a relatively long life expectancy (such as six months or more), a fractionated regimen (such as 30 Gy in 10 fractions or 20 Gy in five fractions) is a reasonable alternative because of the reduced need for retreatment.

This recommendation is in keeping with evidence-based guidelines from the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), which support single-fraction EBRT at a dose of 8 Gy to provide palliation for relief of pain from bone metastases [2]. This approach is more convenient and cost-effective compared with fractionated schedules, and there is no evidence that the use of a single-fraction regimen is associated with an increase in acute or late toxicity. However, retreatment is necessary in a higher number of those initially treated with a single fraction compared with those initially managed with a fractionated regimen (approximately 20 versus 8 percent).

The similar effectiveness of a single fraction of 8 Gy compared with longer fractionated courses has been shown in multiple large randomized trials [7-10] and several meta-analyses [11-14], all of which concluded that single-fraction RT results in similar rates of pain control and treatment-related toxicity compared with multiple-fraction RT, but a higher rate of retreatment. As examples:

In a Dutch multicenter trial, 1171 patients with painful bone metastases were randomly assigned to 8 Gy in a single dose or to 24 Gy in six fractions [7,8]. The palliative benefit was similar in both groups (overall pain relief in 72 and 69 percent of patients, respectively), as were the time to response (median three weeks in both groups) and the rates of treatment-related toxicity. However, retreatment was required by significantly more patients treated with a single fraction (25 versus 7 percent).

In the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) trial 9714, 949 patients with prostate or breast cancer and painful bone metastases were randomly assigned to 8 Gy in a single fraction or to 30 Gy in 10 fractions [9]. Patients with evidence of cauda equina syndrome or epidural spinal cord compression were excluded. There were no significant differences in the rates for complete and partial pain relief (overall 66 percent in each group), the use of narcotics, or the incidence of subsequent pathologic fractures. However, patients treated with a single fraction were twice as likely to require retreatment (18 versus 9 percent).

Despite these data, a year 2015 assessment of national practice suggests marked underutilization of single-fraction treatment approaches [15].

Dose of single-fraction radiation — A single 8 Gy dose of RT is more effective than lower doses at providing pain relief [16].

In a representative multicenter trial, 651 patients with painful bone metastases were randomly assigned to treatment with either 8 or 4 Gy as a single dose [17]. The main tumor types represented in the trial were breast, lung, and prostate cancer (35, 35, and 17 percent, respectively). The overall response rate was higher at 4, 8, and 52 weeks with the 8 Gy dose of radiation (83 versus 71, 91 versus 83, and 93 versus 82 percent, respectively). The retreatment rate was significantly lower in those given 8 Gy (14 versus 22 percent).

Time course of relief and incidence of pain flare — The majority of patients receiving a single fraction of EBRT for a painful bone metastasis derive pain relief, and relief is often rapid. This was shown in an analysis of data from the National Cancer Institute of Canada (NCIC) symptom control trial SC.23, which examined the benefit of dexamethasone to prevent pain flare in patients receiving EBRT [18]. A total of 122 out of 298 patients (41 percent) had a beneficial response by day 10, while an additional 116 patients (39 percent) responded by day 42. These data provide support for the view that a single dose of RT should be offered to all patients with painful bone metastases, even those with poor expected survival.

A transient worsening of pain ("pain flare") occurs in approximately 30 to 40 percent of patients undergoing RT for a painful bone metastasis [4,19]. This typically occurs in the first few days after RT, and the flare in pain generally lasts one to two days.

Treatment with dexamethasone may reduce the frequency or severity of pain flare, although the data are somewhat contradictory:

In a double-blind trial, in which 298 patients with painful bone metastases were randomly assigned to either dexamethasone (8 mg daily for five days beginning one hour before a single dose of 8 Gy radiation) or placebo, the incidence of pain flare was decreased with dexamethasone compared with placebo (26 versus 35 percent, p = 0.05) [19].

Similarly, benefit was suggested in a trial of 120 patients with symptomatic vertebral metastases treated with 30 Gy in three fractions; those randomly assigned to a single dose of methylprednisolone prior to treatment had a lower incidence of pain flare (6.6 versus 20 percent in the placebo group, relative risk reduction 72 percent) [20].

On the other hand, a Dutch trial that randomized 295 patients with painful bone metastases from a solid tumor to multiday dexamethasone (8 mg before RT, followed by three daily doses), single-dose dexamethasone (8 mg dexamethasone followed by three days of placebo), or placebo daily for four days, the pain flare incidence was 38, 27, and 39 percent for the three groups, respectively [21]. Although the incidence of pain flare was not significantly different, patients receiving four days of dexamethasone reported lower mean pain scores on days 2 through 5 than did those receiving a single daily dose of dexamethasone or placebo.

A systematic review of four clinical trials (including two of the three described above) and one prospective cohort study concluded that a short course of a glucocorticoid (eg, oral dexamethasone 8 mg once daily from day 1 through day 5) was effective in preventing pain flare during radiation therapy for bone metastases [22]. The overall incidence of pain flare was significantly less in the prophylaxis group (21 versus 37 percent, 43 percent relative risk reduction). When the analysis was limited to the two placebo-controlled phase III trials [19,20], the risk for pain flare was 21 versus 31 percent (relative risk 0.67, 95% CI 0.48-0.93).

While the administration of a short course of glucocorticoids may decrease flare, this benefit must be carefully weighed against the risks of toxicity (hyperglycemia, gastrointestinal irritation, and insomnia). We do prescribe glucocorticoids to patients with epidural spinal cord compression. (See "Treatment and prognosis of neoplastic epidural spinal cord compression", section on 'Glucocorticoids'.)

Need for surgery — Surgical fixation may be indicated prior to EBRT to decrease pain and facilitate rehabilitation in symptomatic bone metastases causing a pathologic fracture involving the long bones or other weight-bearing bones. In other cases, prophylactic fixation to prevent pathologic fractures, or surgical stabilization of an unstable spine may be recommended prior to EBRT for an impending fracture.

Mirels scoring system was developed to address the void in objective criteria for predicting fracture risk in the setting of metastatic disease to long bones, and it is outlined in the table and discussed in more detail separately (table 1) [23]. In general, we request orthopedic consultation for patients with long bone metastases and a Mirels score of 8 or higher. A separate assessment, the Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS), has been developed for vertebral metastases (table 2). (See "Clinical presentation and evaluation of complete and impending pathologic fractures in patients with metastatic bone disease, multiple myeloma, and lymphoma", section on 'Assessing the risk of fracture' and "Clinical presentation and evaluation of complete and impending pathologic fractures in patients with metastatic bone disease, multiple myeloma, and lymphoma", section on 'Assessing spinal stability'.)

Patients with inoperable fractures and those who are physically debilitated may achieve pain relief from palliative EBRT alone.

Stereotactic radiation therapy

Indications — SBRT utilizes precisely targeted radiation to the tumor while minimizing radiation to adjacent normal tissue, allowing the treatment of small- or moderate-sized tumors in either a single or limited number of dose fractions. SBRT may have a role in treating select patients with painful bone metastases, although its role is evolving.

Radioresistant neoplasms — One setting in which SBRT may be preferred over EBRT is in the definitive treatment of patients with symptomatic bone metastases from relatively radioresistant neoplasms (eg, renal cell cancer, melanoma, sarcoma), especially in the setting of vertebral metastases with epidural extension but no high-grade epidural spinal cord compression.

The efficacy of SBRT for relatively radioresistant neoplasms can be illustrated by a large series in which SBRT (12.5 to 25 Gy, median 20 Gy) was used to treat 393 patients (including 93 with renal cell and 38 with melanoma metastases), 69 percent of whom had received prior RT [24]. Long-term pain improvement was experienced by 86 percent of all patients, including 94 percent of those with renal cell cancer and 96 percent of those with melanoma. Long-term tumor control was achieved in 90 percent of lesions treated with stereotactic radiosurgery as the primary treatment modality, including 87 percent of patients with renal cell cancer and 75 percent of those with melanoma. Of the 32 patients with a progressive neurologic deficit prior to treatment, 27 (84 percent) improved clinically.

Management of patients with epidural spinal cord compression is discussed in detail elsewhere. (See "Treatment and prognosis of neoplastic epidural spinal cord compression", section on 'Stereotactic body radiotherapy'.)

Patients with oligometastatic cancer — Another setting in which SBRT may be considered is in patients with oligometastatic bone metastases defined as one to five metastatic lesions, a controlled primary as optional, but where all metastatic sites may be safely treated. This view is in keeping with consensus guidelines from the American Society of Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) and the European Society of Radiation Oncology (ESTRO) [25]. Several randomized trials have assessed the use of SBRT in patients with oligometastatic cancers. Although these trials were mostly phase II designs (or phase III trials that did not complete), many have shown improvements in overall survival, progression-free survival, and other endpoints, across a number of cancer histologies [26-31].

The Ablative Radiotherapy for the Comprehensive Treatment of Oligometastases (SABR-COMET) randomized phase II trial which was originally designed with five years of follow-up, but the trial was amended in 2016 to extend follow-up to 10 years [31,32]. Patients were eligible if they had a controlled primary tumor and one to five metastases, with all metastases amenable to SABR. Patients were randomized in a 1:2 ratio between palliative standard-of-care treatment which included standard-fractionation RT with or without systemic chemotherapy (control arm) versus SABR to all metastases plus standard-of-care (SABR arm). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Ninety-nine patients were randomized between 2012 and 2016. Primary tumor sites included lung, breast, colon, prostate, and other. Sixty-five patients had bone metastases. In the initial primary endpoint analysis, SBRT demonstrated a nonsignificant trend towards better overall survival (41 versus 28 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.57, 95% CI 0.30-1.10) [26].

At five years, the OS rate was 17.7 percent in the control arm (95% CI 6-34 percent) versus 42.3 percent in the SABR arm (95% CI 28-56percent; stratified log-rank p = 0.006) [31]. Eight-year OS was 13.6 percent in the control arm versus 27.2 percent in the SABR arm (HR 0.50; 95% CI 0.30-0.84; p = 0.008) [32].

These data must be tempered with the potential increase in treatment-related acute and late morbidity in patients treated with SBRT. In this trial, rates of grade ≥2 acute or late toxic effects were 30.3 percent SABR versus 9.1 percent standard care (p = 0.019) [26]. Pain was the most common grade ≥2 toxic effect (12.1 versus 0 percent), mostly noted in SABR arm patients with bone metastases. There were three deaths in the SABR arm (4.5 percent) that were deemed possibly, probably, or definitely related to treatment. In long-term follow-up of up to eight years, there were no new grade 2 to 5 adverse events and no differences in quality of life between arms [32].

Additional data are available from a meta-analysis of data from 21 single-arm studies evaluating ablative stereotactic radiotherapy for patients with oligometastatic cancer (943 patients and 1290 oligometastases, 45 percent in bone), acute grade 3 to 5 toxic effect rates were 1.2 percent (95% CI 0-3.8 percent) and, at a median follow-up of 16.9 months, late grade 3 to 5 toxic effect rates were 1.7 percent (95% CI 0.2-4.6 percent) [33]. Estimates for one-year overall and progression-free survival were 85.4 (95% CI 77.1-92.0) and 51.4 (95% CI 42.7-60.1) percent, respectively.

Although these data seem reassuring, higher rates of late grade 3 or 4 toxicities are reported by others with longer follow-up [34], and phase III confirmatory trials are needed to confirm the safety and efficacy of this approach. To this end, larger phase III trials are underway for patients with oligometastatic disease:

SABR-COMET-3 and SABR-COMET-10 are assessing the impact of SABR on OS in patients with 1 to 3 and 4 to 10 metastases, respectively, accruing patients with a controlled primary tumor of any solid tumor histology.

The CORE trial is a phase II/III trial that includes patients with breast, non-small cell lung, or prostate cancer histology with a controlled primary tumor and one to three metastatic lesions.

Large cooperative group trials specific to lung cancer (NRG-LU002) and breast cancer (NRG-BR002) oligometastases are also ongoing.

Local control and pain relief versus EBRT

General populations — Whether SBRT is better than EBRT for symptomatic bone metastases in terms of local control and pain relief continues to be evaluated.

The better outcomes of single-fraction SBRT over multiple-fraction EBRT is illustrated by the results of a phase II noninferiority trial in which 160 patients with painful bone metastases were randomly assigned to single-fraction SBRT (12 Gy for a ≥4 cm lesion, 16 Gy for a <4 cm lesion) or EBRT (30 Gy in 10 fractions) [35]. The single-fraction SBRT group had a higher fraction of complete responders at all time points post-treatment (eg, 77 versus 46 percent at nine months), and there were no local failures at 24 months of follow-up (versus 10 percent local failures in the EBRT group).

A systematic review of 57 studies addressing the role of SBRT for bone metastases (one randomized phase II trial, the remainder retrospective or prospective cohort studies) concluded that, while there might be potential benefit for SBRT over conventional palliative RT for pain response and local tumor control, there was a high risk of selection bias in the observational studies, there was marked heterogeneity in the study populations and delivered treatments, and few studies used consensus endpoint definitions of pain response [36].

On the other hand, a meta-analysis evaluating 964 patients who were enrolled on seven randomized control trials failed to demonstrate the superiority of SBRT over EBRT for pain palliation [37].

Vertebral body metastases

Efficacy – Whether SBRT is better than EBRT for painful vertebral body metastases symptom control remains unclear, as there are several published randomized trials comparing EBRT with SBRT for pain control in patients with spine metastases in the palliative setting, with disparate conclusions:

The first was a randomized phase II trial on 55 patients with painful de novo spinal metastases [38]. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive 24 Gy in one SBRT fraction versus 30 Gy in 10 three-dimensional EBRT fractions. The primary end point was defined as pain relief >2 points according to the Visual Analog Scale measured at the irradiated region three months after radiation and based on definitions of response using the International Consensus Pain Response Endpoints [39]. The results suggested a trend towards improved complete pain response rates at three months in the SBRT arm (43.5 versus 17.4 percent, p = 0.057), which was significant at six months (52.6 versus 10 percent, p = 0.003).

SBRT was worse than EBRT for symptom control in a multicenter randomized phase III study (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group [RTOG] 0631) [40]. In this trial, 339 patients with one to three sites of spine metastases were randomly assigned to receive either SBRT (n = 209) at 16 or 18 Gy in a single fraction or EBRT (n = 130) at 8 Gy in a single fraction. The primary end point was complete or partial pain response at the treated (index) site, as measured using the 11-point Numerical Rating Pain Scale at three months post completion of radiation therapy. In this trial, pain response at three months was worse with SBRT (41 versus 61 percent). However, long-term outcomes have not yet been reported.

On the other hand, a phase II/III Canadian Cancer Trials Group/Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group trial, randomly assigned 229 patients with painful spine metastases to SBRT (24 Gy in two fractions) or EBRT (20 Gy in five fractions), concluded that SBRT was superior to conventional EBRT at significantly improving the complete response rate for pain at both three (36 versus 14 percent) and six months (33 versus 16 percent) [41]. The primary end point for this trial was the complete response rate for pain at the index site using criteria defined by the International Consensus Pain Response Endpoint described above at the three-month follow-up. There were 20 (17 percent) versus 12 (11 percent) post-RT vertebral compression fractures (VCFs), and two versus zero patients progressed to epidural spinal cord compression in the EBRT and SBRT arms, respectively.

SBRT dose escalation to 28 Gy in two fractions may provide higher rates of local control for vertebral bone metastases without increasing the VCF rate [42]. In a retrospective analysis, a total of 947 treated vertebral segments in 482 patients were identified, of which 301 segments in 159 patients received 28 Gy, and 646 segments in 323 patients received 24 Gy, in 2 fractions. Median follow-up per patient was 23.5 months. In the 28 Gy cohort, the 6-, 12-, and 24-month cumulative incidences of local failure were 3.5, 5.4, and 11.1 percent, versus 6.0, 12.5, and 17.6 percent in the 24 Gy cohort, respectively (p = 0.008). Risk of VCF was 5.5, 7.6, and 10.7 percent at 6-, 12- and 24-months, respectively, and similar between cohorts (p = 0.573). Prospective data are warranted to further evaluate this higher dose.

Risk of fracture — The use of SBRT for vertebral body metastases may be associated with a higher risk of VCF, which is an early acute or subacute side effect:

There were 32 cases of VCF recorded in the Canadian Cancer Trials Group/Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group trial (11 percent overall) and 30 of the 32 (94 percent) were grade 1 in severity [41]. There was one (1 percent) grade 3 and one (1 percent) grade 4 VCF in the SBRT and conventional fractionation EBRT arms, respectively (the only grade 4 toxicity in that trial).

In a randomized phase II trial, the reported incidence of new pathological VCFs at three and six months was 8.7 percent (n = 2) and 27.8 percent (n = 5), respectively [38]. There were no cases of radiation myelopathy reported in either trial.

The final report with rates of VCF or radiation myelopathy following SBRT is not yet available from the RTOG 0631 trial [43]. The VCF rates observed in the preliminary report may suggest a safer profile with 24 Gy in two SBRT fractions versus 24 Gy in one SBRT fraction, which has been supported in prior literature.

In a series of 252 patients in which 410 spinal segments were treated with SBRT, 57 VCFs (14 percent) were observed, 27 of which were new and 30 of which were a progression of preexisting fractures [44]. Multivariate analysis suggested that the risk was greatest in those treated with a single fraction of 20 Gy or greater and in those with a baseline fracture, lytic tumor, or spinal deformity.

In another report of 448 patients (1070 vertebral bodies), 127 VCFs (11.9 percent) in 97 patients were potentially SBRT induced [45]. In multivariate analysis, patients with prior VCF, primary hematologic malignancy, thoracic spine lesions, and lytic lesions had increased rates of developing fracture. Patients treated with fraction sizes >18 Gy seemed to have a higher rate of fracture than did those treated at 16 to 18 Gy (3 of 31 versus 33 of 1030). The median time to develop a VCF was 2.7 months.

In addition to the risk of VCF, there is also a risk of posttreatment fracture in long bones. In a multicenter analysis of 111 patients with 114 metastases in the femur, humerus, or tibia treated with SBRT (with the most common dose being 30 to 50 Gy in 5 sessions) and followed for a median of 21 months, the risk of fracture at one, two, and three years was 3.5, 6.1, and 9.8 percent, respectively [46]. Extraosseous disease extension was associated with an increased risk of both fracture, and local failure.

Treatment planning — There is significant heterogeneity in technique and dose fractionation when SBRT is used for non-spine metastases. In a preliminary report on international practice patterns, for SBRT for non-spine metastases 35 Gy in 5 fractions was the most common dose-fractionation, and there was strong agreement on CTV delineation and the utility of MRI imaging for planning [47].

Treatment of recurrent or persistent pain — Options for patients who have persistent or recurrent bone pain following treatment with external beam RT (EBRT) include repeat irradiation with fractionated treatment (especially if single-fraction EBRT was initially used), stereotactic RT, image-guided local thermal ablation, or radiopharmaceuticals. (See 'Stereotactic radiation therapy' above and "Image-guided ablation of skeletal metastases" and 'Bone-targeted radioisotopes' below.)

Safety and efficacy of reirradiation — Reirradiation may be a useful option for patients with painful bone metastases if the initial treatment fails to adequately relieve bone pain or there is a subsequent relapse after an initial response. A meta-analysis of seven studies that included 2694 patients who were initially treated with RT for painful bone metastases found that reirradiation was subsequently used in 527 (20 percent) [48]. Retreatment produced some benefit in terms of pain relief in 58 percent (95% CI 49-67).

There are only limited data on the optimal schedule and dose for patients in whom reirradiation is indicated. The most extensive data come from a trial in which 850 patients were randomly assigned to either a single fraction of 8 Gy or 20 Gy divided in eight fractions of 2.5 Gy [49]:

Overall, 521 patients (61 percent) received the assigned treatment and were assessable for a pain response two months after completion of reirradiation. Within the per-protocol subset, there was no statistically significant difference in pain response (28 percent of those given a single 8 Gy fraction versus 32 percent of those given 20 Gy in eight fractions); this difference was within the predetermined noninferiority limits. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of pathologic fractures or spinal cord compression, although there was a trend toward a decreased incidence in those given the longer schedule.

Acute toxicity was significantly higher in the 20 Gy arm one week after treatment in terms of loss of appetite, incidence of vomiting, diarrhea, and skin reddening. There was no difference in patient-reported global quality of life two months after treatment.

PATIENTS WITH DIFFUSE BONE PAIN — Some patients with multiple bone metastases have diffuse pain that is not easily managed by focal radiation. There are two options in such circumstances: bone-targeted radioisotopes and hemibody irradiation.

Bone-targeted radioisotopes — Bone-targeting radioisotopes (eg, the beta-emitting agents strontium-89, samarium-153 lexidronam, and rhenium-186, and alpha-emitting radium-223) localize to areas of osteoblastic activity and are indicated for the treatment of bone pain in patients with predominantly osteoblastic metastases. Because these agents are systemically administered, they are most appropriate for patients with multiple painful bone lesions. The vast majority of the efficacy data are in patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Data on other tumor types are limited [50-52] but show promise, especially for metastatic breast cancer. Clinical trials are underway examining the efficacy of radium-223 in a variety of solid tumor types. (See "Bone metastases in advanced prostate cancer: Management", section on 'Bone-targeted radioisotopes'.)

Radium-223 dichloride is an alpha-particle-emitting radiotherapeutic drug that mimics calcium and forms complexes with hydroxyapatite at areas of increased bone turnover; it is approved only for the treatment of patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer, symptomatic bone metastases, and no known visceral metastatic disease. Radium-223 was approved based on a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had symptomatic bone metastases and no known visceral metastatic disease [53]. Radium-223 significantly improved overall survival and had a beneficial effect on delaying bone pain, with the time to having to undergo external beam RT (EBRT) for bone pain being significantly longer for patients receiving radium-223 than for those receiving placebo. The recommended dose and schedule for radium-223 dichloride is 50 kBq/kg (1.35 microcuries/kg) administered by slow intravenous injection over one minute every four weeks for six doses. Pain relief has been reported in approximately 71 percent of treated patients by week 8, although some pain relief may be evident as early as week 2 [54]. Radium-223 can be administered with EBRT, and is safe whether administered concurrently or sequentially [55]. However, concurrent use with abiraterone has been associated with increased fracture risk, especially when bone health agents are not employed. (See "Bone metastases in advanced prostate cancer: Management", section on 'Radium-223'.)

Hemibody irradiation — Hemibody irradiation refers to treating a large portion of the body with external beam irradiation and can provide rapid pain relief when multiple sites of symptomatic bone metastases are present [2,56]. The use of hemibody irradiation has largely been replaced by the administration of radiopharmaceuticals, which offer a similar degree of pain relief and may be associated with less toxicity. Hemibody irradiation may retain a role when access to radiopharmaceuticals is limited. While there are limited data, historical doses of 6 Gy in one fraction to the upper torso and 8 Gy in one fraction to the lower body have been used [57,58]. (See 'Bone-targeted radioisotopes' above.)

SOCIETY GUIDELINE LINKS — Links to society and government-sponsored guidelines from selected countries and regions around the world are provided separately. (See "Society guideline links: Management of bone metastases in solid tumors".)

INFORMATION FOR PATIENTS — UpToDate offers two types of patient education materials, "The Basics" and "Beyond the Basics." The Basics patient education pieces are written in plain language, at the 5th to 6th grade reading level, and they answer the four or five key questions a patient might have about a given condition. These articles are best for patients who want a general overview and who prefer short, easy-to-read materials. Beyond the Basics patient education pieces are longer, more sophisticated, and more detailed. These articles are written at the 10th to 12th grade reading level and are best for patients who want in-depth information and are comfortable with some medical jargon.

Here are the patient education articles that are relevant to this topic. We encourage you to print or e-mail these topics to your patients. (You can also locate patient education articles on a variety of subjects by searching on "patient info" and the keyword(s) of interest.)

Basics topics (see "Patient education: Bone metastases (The Basics)")

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Supportive care – For all patients with painful bone metastases, supportive care should include adequate analgesia and the use of osteoclast inhibitors to enhance analgesia and reduce the risk of skeletal-related events (including the need for radiation or surgery to bone, pathologic fractures, spinal cord compression, and hypercalcemia of malignancy). (See 'Supportive care' above.)

Single or limited number of painful metastases

External beam RT – For most patients with a single or limited number of areas of painful bone metastases, we recommend external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) (Grade 1A). (See 'External beam radiation therapy' above.)

-For most patients, we suggest using a single fraction of 8 Gy to the involved area (Grade 2A). This approach provides equal palliation with improved patient convenience and cost-effectiveness compared with fractionated schedules, although retreatment is needed more frequently. (See 'Single-dose versus fractionated treatment' above.)

-For patients with a relatively long life expectancy (six months or longer), a fractionated regimen (such as 30 Gy in 10 fractions or 20 Gy in five fractions) is a reasonable alternative.

-A transient worsening of pain ("pain flare") occurs in approximately 30 to 40 percent of patients undergoing RT for a painful bone metastasis. Treatment with dexamethasone may reduce the frequency of pain flare. (See 'Time course of relief and incidence of pain flare' above.)

Indications for SBRT – In our view, stereotactic body RT (SBRT) should be reserved mostly for patients who have persistent or recurrent bone pain after a standard course of EBRT. This view is in keeping with evidence-based guidelines on palliative RT for bone metastases from the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

One setting in which SBRT may be preferred over EBRT is in the definitive treatment of patients with symptomatic bone metastases from relatively radioresistant neoplasms (eg, renal cell cancer, melanoma, sarcoma), especially in the setting of vertebral metastases with epidural extension but no high-grade epidural spinal cord compression. For patients with oligometastatic bone disease, a controlled primary site, and a long estimated life expectancy, SBRT is also a reasonable approach. (See 'Stereotactic radiation therapy' above.)

Need for surgery – Surgical consultation for fixation should be obtained prior to the institution of RT for high-risk bone metastases involving the long bones or other weight-bearing bones to treat or prevent a pathologic fracture. In general, we request orthopedic consultation for patients with a Mirels score of 8 or higher (table 1). (See 'Need for surgery' above and "Management of complete and impending pathologic fractures in patients with metastatic bone disease, multiple myeloma, and lymphoma", section on 'Management principles'.)

Persistent or recurrent pain – Options for patients who have persistent or recurrent bone pain following treatment with EBRT include repeat irradiation with fractionated treatment (especially if single-fraction EBRT was initially used), SBRT, image-guided local thermal ablation, kyphoplasty/vertebroplasty for vertebral compression fractures, or radiopharmaceuticals. (See 'Treatment of recurrent or persistent pain' above.)

Reirradiation may be indicated if there is an incomplete response to initial treatment or if severe pain recurs and the patient's overall condition permits. Clinical trials data suggest that acceptable regimens include a single fraction of 8 Gy or a brief fractionated regimen of 20 Gy, although the latter can be associated with higher acute toxicity. For selected patients with a good performance status and recurrence in the spine, SBRT is another option, where available. (See 'Stereotactic radiation therapy' above and 'Safety and efficacy of reirradiation' above.)

Diffuse bone metastases – Some patients with multiple bone metastases have diffuse pain that is not easily managed by focal radiation. There are two options in such circumstances: systemic administration of a bone-targeted radioisotope, and hemibody irradiation. (See 'Patients with diffuse bone pain' above.)

  1. Nielsen OS. Palliative radiotherapy of bone metastases: there is now evidence for the use of single fractions. Radiother Oncol 1999; 52:95.
  2. Lutz S, Balboni T, Jones J, et al. Palliative radiation therapy for bone metastases: Update of an ASTRO Evidence-Based Guideline. Pract Radiat Oncol 2017; 7:4.
  3. Kirou-Mauro A, Hird A, Wong J, et al. Is response to radiotherapy in patients related to the severity of pretreatment pain? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 71:1208.
  4. Hird A, Chow E, Zhang L, et al. Determining the incidence of pain flare following palliative radiotherapy for symptomatic bone metastases: results from three canadian cancer centers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 75:193.
  5. Yap WK, Shih MC, Kuo C, et al. Development and Validation of a Nomogram for Assessing Survival in Patients With Metastatic Lung Cancer Referred for Radiotherapy for Bone Metastases. JAMA Netw Open 2018; 1:e183242.
  6. Chow E, James JL, Hartsell W, et al. Validation of a Predictive Model for Survival in Patients With Advanced Cancer: Secondary Analysis of RTOG 9714. World J Oncol 2011; 2:181.
  7. Steenland E, Leer JW, van Houwelingen H, et al. The effect of a single fraction compared to multiple fractions on painful bone metastases: a global analysis of the Dutch Bone Metastasis Study. Radiother Oncol 1999; 52:101.
  8. van der Linden YM, Lok JJ, Steenland E, et al. Single fraction radiotherapy is efficacious: a further analysis of the Dutch Bone Metastasis Study controlling for the influence of retreatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004; 59:528.
  9. Hartsell WF, Scott CB, Bruner DW, et al. Randomized trial of short- versus long-course radiotherapy for palliation of painful bone metastases. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97:798.
  10. 8 Gy single fraction radiotherapy for the treatment of metastatic skeletal pain: randomised comparison with a multifraction schedule over 12 months of patient follow-up. Bone Pain Trial Working Party. Radiother Oncol 1999; 52:111.
  11. Chow E, Harris K, Fan G, et al. Palliative radiotherapy trials for bone metastases: a systematic review. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25:1423.
  12. Chow E, Zeng L, Salvo N, et al. Update on the systematic review of palliative radiotherapy trials for bone metastases. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2012; 24:112.
  13. Chow R, Hoskin P, Chan S, et al. Efficacy of multiple fraction conventional radiation therapy for painful uncomplicated bone metastases: A systematic review. Radiother Oncol 2017; 122:323.
  14. Chow R, Hoskin P, Schild SE, et al. Single vs multiple fraction palliative radiation therapy for bone metastases: Cumulative meta-analysis. Radiother Oncol 2019; 141:56.
  15. Rutter CE, Yu JB, Wilson LD, Park HS. Assessment of national practice for palliative radiation therapy for bone metastases suggests marked underutilization of single-fraction regimens in the United States. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2015; 91:548.
  16. Dennis K, Makhani L, Zeng L, et al. Single fraction conventional external beam radiation therapy for bone metastases: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Radiother Oncol 2013; 106:5.
  17. Hoskin P, Rojas A, Fidarova E, et al. IAEA randomised trial of optimal single dose radiotherapy in the treatment of painful bone metastases. Radiother Oncol 2015; 116:10.
  18. McDonald R, Ding K, Brundage M, et al. Effect of Radiotherapy on Painful Bone Metastases: A Secondary Analysis of the NCIC Clinical Trials Group Symptom Control Trial SC.23. JAMA Oncol 2017.
  19. Chow E, Meyer RM, Ding K, et al. Dexamethasone in the prophylaxis of radiation-induced pain flare after palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases: a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2015; 16:1463.
  20. Yousef AA, El-Mashad NM. Pre-emptive value of methylprednisolone intravenous infusion in patients with vertebral metastases. A double-blind randomized study. J Pain Symptom Manage 2014; 48:762.
  21. van der Linden YM, Westhoff PG, Stellato RK, et al. Dexamethasone for the Prevention of a Pain Flare After Palliative Radiation Therapy for Painful Bone Metastases: The Multicenter Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled 3-Armed Randomized Dutch DEXA Study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 108:546.
  22. Fabregat C, Almendros S, Navarro-Martin A, Gonzalez J. Pain Flare-Effect Prophylaxis With Corticosteroids on Bone Radiotherapy Treatment: A Systematic Review. Pain Pract 2020; 20:101.
  23. Mirels H. Metastatic disease in long bones. A proposed scoring system for diagnosing impending pathologic fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989; :256.
  24. Gerszten PC, Burton SA, Ozhasoglu C, Welch WC. Radiosurgery for spinal metastases: clinical experience in 500 cases from a single institution. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007; 32:193.
  25. Lievens Y, Guckenberger M, Gomez D, et al. Defining oligometastatic disease from a radiation oncology perspective: An ESTRO-ASTRO consensus document. Radiother Oncol 2020; 148:157.
  26. Palma DA, Olson R, Harrow S, et al. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus standard of care palliative treatment in patients with oligometastatic cancers (SABR-COMET): a randomised, phase 2, open-label trial. Lancet 2019; 393:2051.
  27. Gomez DR, Tang C, Zhang J, et al. Local Consolidative Therapy Vs. Maintenance Therapy or Observation for Patients With Oligometastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Long-Term Results of a Multi-Institutional, Phase II, Randomized Study. J Clin Oncol 2019; 37:1558.
  28. Iyengar P, Wardak Z, Gerber DE, et al. Consolidative Radiotherapy for Limited Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol 2018; 4:e173501.
  29. Phillips R, Shi WY, Deek M, et al. Outcomes of Observation vs Stereotactic Ablative Radiation for Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer: The ORIOLE Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol 2020; 6:650.
  30. Ost P, Reynders D, Decaestecker K, et al. Surveillance or Metastasis-Directed Therapy for Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer Recurrence: A Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter Phase II Trial. J Clin Oncol 2018; 36:446.
  31. Palma DA, Olson R, Harrow S, et al. Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for the Comprehensive Treatment of Oligometastatic Cancers: Long-Term Results of the SABR-COMET Phase II Randomized Trial. J Clin Oncol 2020; 38:2830.
  32. Harrow S, Palma DA, Olson R, et al. Stereotactic Radiation for the Comprehensive Treatment of Oligometastases (SABR-COMET): Extended Long-Term Outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022; 114:611.
  33. Lehrer EJ, Singh R, Wang M, et al. Safety and Survival Rates Associated With Ablative Stereotactic Radiotherapy for Patients With Oligometastatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol 2021; 7:92.
  34. Chmura S, Winter KA, Robinson C, et al. Evaluation of Safety of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for the Treatment of Patients With Multiple Metastases: Findings From the NRG-BR001 Phase 1 Trial. JAMA Oncol 2021; 7:845.
  35. Nguyen QN, Chun SG, Chow E, et al. Single-Fraction Stereotactic vs Conventional Multifraction Radiotherapy for Pain Relief in Patients With Predominantly Nonspine Bone Metastases: A Randomized Phase 2 Trial. JAMA Oncol 2019; 5:872.
  36. Spencer KL, van der Velden JM, Wong E, et al. Systematic Review of the Role of Stereotactic Radiotherapy for Bone Metastases. J Natl Cancer Inst 2019; 111:1023.
  37. Ito K, Saito T, Nakamura N, et al. Stereotactic body radiotherapy versus conventional radiotherapy for painful bone metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Radiat Oncol 2022; 17:156.
  38. Sprave T, Verma V, Förster R, et al. Randomized phase II trial evaluating pain response in patients with spinal metastases following stereotactic body radiotherapy versus three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2018; 128:274.
  39. Chow E, Wu JS, Hoskin P, et al. International consensus on palliative radiotherapy endpoints for future clinical trials in bone metastases. Radiother Oncol 2002; 64:275.
  40. Ryu S, Deshmukh S, Timmerman RD, et al. Stereotactic Radiosurgery vs Conventional Radiotherapy for Localized Vertebral Metastases of the Spine: Phase 3 Results of NRG Oncology/RTOG 0631 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol 2023; 9:800.
  41. Sahgal A, Myrehaug SD, Siva S, et al. Stereotactic body radiotherapy versus conventional external beam radiotherapy in patients with painful spinal metastases: an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2021; 22:1023.
  42. Zeng KL, Abugarib A, Soliman H, et al. Dose-Escalated 2-Fraction Spine Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy: 28 Gy Versus 24 Gy in 2 Daily Fractions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 115:686.
  43. Ryu S, Deshmukh S, Timmerman RD, et al. Radiosurgery Compared To External Beam Radiotherapy for Localized Spine Metastasis: Phase III Results of NRG Oncology/RTOG 0631. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019; 105S:S2.
  44. Sahgal A, Atenafu EG, Chao S, et al. Vertebral compression fracture after spine stereotactic body radiotherapy: a multi-institutional analysis with a focus on radiation dose and the spinal instability neoplastic score. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31:3426.
  45. Boyce-Fappiano D, Elibe E, Schultz L, et al. Analysis of the Factors Contributing to Vertebral Compression Fractures After Spine Stereotactic Radiosurgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2017; 97:236.
  46. Madani I, Sahgal A, Erler D, et al. Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Metastases in Long Bones. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022; 114:738.
  47. Nguyen T, Sahgal A, Chin L, et al. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for non-spine bone metastases: An international survey of practice patterns. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019; 105S:E570.
  48. Huisman M, van den Bosch MA, Wijlemans JW, et al. Effectiveness of reirradiation for painful bone metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 84:8.
  49. Chow E, van der Linden YM, Roos D, et al. Single versus multiple fractions of repeat radiation for painful bone metastases: a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15:164.
  50. Zacho HD, Karthigaseu NN, Fonager RF, Petersen LJ. Treatment with bone-seeking radionuclides for painful bone metastases in patients with lung cancer: a systematic review. BMJ Support Palliat Care 2017; 7:230.
  51. Coleman R, Aksnes AK, Naume B, et al. A phase IIa, nonrandomized study of radium-223 dichloride in advanced breast cancer patients with bone-dominant disease. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2014; 145:411.
  52. Kolesnikov-Gauthier H, Lemoine N, Tresch-Bruneel E, et al. Efficacy and safety of 153Sm-EDTMP as treatment of painful bone metastasis: a large single-center study. Support Care Cancer 2018; 26:751.
  53. Parker C, Nilsson S, Heinrich D, et al. Alpha emitter radium-223 and survival in metastatic prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2013; 369:213.
  54. Nilsson S, Strang P, Aksnes AK, et al. A randomized, dose-response, multicenter phase II study of radium-223 chloride for the palliation of painful bone metastases in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur J Cancer 2012; 48:678.
  55. Finkelstein SE, Michalski JM, O'Sullivan J, et al. External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) use and safety with Radium-223 Dichloride (Ra-223) in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and symptomatic bone metastaes (mets) from the ALSYMPCA trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2015; 93S:S201.
  56. Salazar OM, Sandhu T, da Motta NW, et al. Fractionated half-body irradiation (HBI) for the rapid palliation of widespread, symptomatic, metastatic bone disease: a randomized Phase III trial of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001; 50:765.
  57. Furlan C, Trovo M, Drigo A, et al. Half-body irradiation with tomotherapy for pain palliation in metastatic breast cancer. J Pain Symptom Manage 2014; 47:174.
  58. Miszczyk L, Gaborek A, Tukiendorf A, et al. Half-body irradiation: a safe and acceptable treatment. Med Sci Monit 2009; 15:CR319.
Topic 2805 Version 47.0

References

آیا می خواهید مدیلیب را به صفحه اصلی خود اضافه کنید؟