We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Single versus multifraction radiotherapy for spinal cord compression: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Radiotherapy and Oncology 2019 May
BACKGROUND: While multifraction radiotherapy (RT) regimens (MFRT) have been considered the standard of care in patients with metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (MESCC) with limited prognosis, recent randomized evidence has demonstrated that single fraction RT (SFRT) may be equivalent in terms of functional and overall outcomes. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to determine the effects of SFRT compared to short course MFRT in patients with MESCC.
METHODS: A search of OVID, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to February 2018 was conducted. Randomized and prospective non-randomized trials comparing SFRT and short course MFRT for MESCC were included. Data were analyzed using a random effects model, and relative risks (RR) or hazard ratios (HR) were reported with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE criteria.
RESULTS: Overall 1717 articles were reviewed. Three randomized trials were eligible for inclusion (n = 712 patients). The pooled treatment effect for SFRT versus MFRT with respect to motor response was RR = 0.96 (95% CI = 0.86-1.07, I2 = 19%), HR = 1.00 (95% CI = 0.88-1.13, I2 = 0%) for OS, and RR = 0.97, (95% CI = 0.85-1.11, I2 = 61%) for bladder function. There was insufficient data to perform a meta-analysis on quality of life, toxicity or pain response, however available information suggests pain response appears similar between SFRT and MFRT. Overall quality of evidence was deemed moderate due to risk of bias. There was no evidence of an observed difference with respect to motor response, bladder dysfunction and OS between SFRT and MFRT for MESCC in patients with a limited prognosis.
METHODS: A search of OVID, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to February 2018 was conducted. Randomized and prospective non-randomized trials comparing SFRT and short course MFRT for MESCC were included. Data were analyzed using a random effects model, and relative risks (RR) or hazard ratios (HR) were reported with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE criteria.
RESULTS: Overall 1717 articles were reviewed. Three randomized trials were eligible for inclusion (n = 712 patients). The pooled treatment effect for SFRT versus MFRT with respect to motor response was RR = 0.96 (95% CI = 0.86-1.07, I2 = 19%), HR = 1.00 (95% CI = 0.88-1.13, I2 = 0%) for OS, and RR = 0.97, (95% CI = 0.85-1.11, I2 = 61%) for bladder function. There was insufficient data to perform a meta-analysis on quality of life, toxicity or pain response, however available information suggests pain response appears similar between SFRT and MFRT. Overall quality of evidence was deemed moderate due to risk of bias. There was no evidence of an observed difference with respect to motor response, bladder dysfunction and OS between SFRT and MFRT for MESCC in patients with a limited prognosis.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
Perioperative echocardiographic strain analysis: what anesthesiologists should know.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 April 11
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app