4.5 Review

Stereotactic body radiotherapy versus conventional radiotherapy for painful bone metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

期刊

RADIATION ONCOLOGY
卷 17, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13014-022-02128-w

关键词

Metastasis; Stereotactic body radiotherapy; Randomised controlled trial; Systematic review; Meta-analysis; Quality of life

资金

  1. Health Labor Sciences Research Grant from the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare of Japan [19EA1010]
  2. NIHR Manchester Biomedical Centre

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the efficacy of SBRT and cEBRT in treating bone metastases. The findings suggest that there is no significant difference in pain palliation between the two treatment modalities. Proper patient selection is essential for the benefits of SBRT.
Background Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is a promising approach in treating painful bone metastases. However, the superiority of SBRT over conventional external beam radiotherapy (cEBRT) remains controversial. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials was conducted to compare SBRT and cEBRT for the treatment of bone metastases. Methods A search was conducted using PubMed on January 22, 2022, with the following inclusion criteria: (i) randomised controlled trials comparing SBRT with cEBRT for bone metastases and (ii) endpoint including pain response. Effect sizes across studies were pooled using random-effects models in a meta-analysis of risk ratios. Results A total of 1246 articles were screened, with 7 articles comprising 964 patients (522 and 442 patients in the SBRT and cEBRT arms, respectively) meeting the inclusion criteria. The overall pain response (OR) rates of bone metastases at 3 months were 45% and 36% in the SBRT and cEBRT arms, respectively. The present analyses showed no significant difference between the two groups. In four studies included for the calculation of OR rates of spinal metastases at three months, the OR rates were 40% and 35% in the SBRT and cEBRT arms, respectively, with no significant difference between the two groups. The incidence of severe adverse effects and health-related quality of life outcomes were comparable between the two arms. Conclusions The superiority of SBRT over cEBRT for pain palliation in bone metastases was not confirmed in this meta-analysis. Although SBRT is a standard of care for bone metastases, patients receiving SBRT should be selected appropriately.

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