4.5 Article

Stereotactic radiosurgery for the treatment of bulky spine metastases

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEURO-ONCOLOGY
卷 148, 期 2, 页码 381-388

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11060-020-03534-4

关键词

Spine; Metastases; SRS; SBRT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has shown durable local control for the treatment of metastatic diseasespinal metastases. Multilevel disease or epidural or paraspinal involvement present challenges to achieving local control, and this study aims to analyze treatment outcomes for such lesions. Methods Patients treated at a single institution with SRS to the spine from 2010-2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion criteria required clinical follow-up with either a pain assessment or imaging study. Bulky spine metastasis was defined as consisting of multilevel disease or epidural or paraspinal tumor involvement. Results 54 patients treated for 62 lesions met inclusion criteria. 42 treatments included at least two vertebrae, and 21 and 31 had paraspinal and epidural involvement, respectively. Treatment regimens had a median 24 Gy in 3 fractions to a volume of 37.75 cm3. Median follow-up was 14.36 months, with 5 instances (8%) of local failure. Median overall survival was 13.32 months. Pain improvement was achieved in 47 treatments (76%), and pain improved with treatment (p < 0.0001). Severe pain (HR = 3.08, p = 0.05), additional bone metastases (HR = 4.82, p = 0.05), and paraspinal involvement (HR = 3.93, p < 0.005) were predictive for worse overall survival. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated that prior chemotherapy (p = 0.03) and additional bone metastases (p = 0.02) were predictive of worse overall survival. Grade < 3 toxicity was observed in 19 cases; no grade >= 3 side effects were observed. Conclusions SRS can effectively treat bulky metastases to the spine, resulting in improvement of pain with minimal toxicity. Severe pain independently predicts for worse overall survival, indicating that treatment prior to worsening of pain is strongly recommended

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据