4.3 Article

Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy for spinal metastasis from hepatocellular carcinoma: its oncologic outcomes and risk of vertebral compression fracture

期刊

ONCOTARGET
卷 8, 期 42, 页码 72860-72871

出版社

IMPACT JOURNALS LLC
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.20529

关键词

stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy; spine; hepatocellular carcinoma; vertebral compression fracture

资金

  1. Samsung Medical Center [SMX1170051]
  2. Marine Biotechnology Program - Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, Korea [20150220]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Spinal metastases from hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) require high-dose irradiation for durable pain and tumor control. Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) enables the delivery of high-dose radiation. However, but vertebral compression fracture (VCF) can be problematic. The aim of his study is to evaluate the outcome and risk of VCF after SABR for spinal metastasis from HCC. We retrospectively reviewed 33 lesions in 42 spinal segments from 29 patients who received SABR with 1 fraction (16-20 Gy), or 3 fractions (18-45 Gy) from September 2009 to January 2015. The 1-year local control (LC) rate was 68.3%. Radiographic grade of cord compression (RGCC) was the only independent prognostic factor associated with LC (P = 0.007). The 1-year ultimate LC rate including the outcome of salvage re-irradiation was 87.2%. The pain response rate was 73.3% according to the categories of the International Bone Metastases Consensus Group. The 1-year VCF-free rate was 71.5%. Pre-existing VCF (P < 0.001) and only-lytic change (P = 0.017) were associated with a higher post-SABR VCF rate. One-third of post-SABR VCFs required interventions. SABR for spinal metastases from HCC provided efficacious LC, especially for lesions with RGCC = II, and showed effective and durable pain relief. As VCF after SABR occurred frequently for vertebral segments with pre-existing VCF and only-lytic change, early preventive vertebroplasty is considerable for those high-risk vertebral segments.

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

4.3
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