We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
REVIEW
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Single fraction radiosurgery, fractionated radiosurgery, and conventional radiotherapy for spinal oligometastasis (SAFFRON): A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Radiotherapy and Oncology 2020 May
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review/meta-analysis of outcomes for patients with spinal metastases treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) (either single-fraction (SF-SRS) or multiple-fraction (MF-SRS)) or conventional radiotherapy (RT).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-seven studies were identified. Primary outcomes were 1-year local control (LC) and acute/late grade 3-5 toxicities (including vertebral compression fractures (VCF)). Weighted random effects meta-analyses using the DerSimonian and Laird methods and meta-regressions were conducted to characterize and compare effect sizes. Mixed effects regression models were used in dose analyses.
RESULTS: A total of 3237 patients with 4911 lesions were included; 43.8%, 19.7%, and 36.5% of lesions received SF-SRS, MF-SRS, or RT, respectively. SF-SRS resulted in improved 1-year LC (92.9% (95% CI: 86.4-97.4%); p = 0.007) compared to RT (81.0% (95% CI: 69.2-90.5%)) with no difference between MF-SRS (82.1%; p = 0.86) and RT. On subgroup analysis of de novo metastases, superior 1-year LC following SF-SRS (95.5% (95% CI: 87.4-99.6%)) was maintained compared to RT (83.6% (95% CI: 70.4-93.5%); p = 0.007). A 4.7% increase in LC was noted for each 10 Gy10 increase in biologically effective dose (BED10 , assuming an alpha/beta = 10) with SRS (p < 0.001). No difference in toxicities were found between SF-SRS (0.4%), MF-SRS (0.2%), or RT (0%). Higher VCF rates were noted following SF-SRS (19.5%) vs. MF-SRS (9.6%; p = 0.039)) with no correlation between dose and VCF rates.
CONCLUSION: SF-SRS resulted in superior LC with a roughly 5% LC benefit for every 10 Gy10 increase in BED10 with higher VCF rates compared to MF-SRS. If LC is the goal of treatment, then SRS may be a preferred treatment modality. However, these results are hypothesis-generating, and prospective randomized clinical trials are indicated to definitively address the question of whether SRS results in improved LC compared to RT.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-seven studies were identified. Primary outcomes were 1-year local control (LC) and acute/late grade 3-5 toxicities (including vertebral compression fractures (VCF)). Weighted random effects meta-analyses using the DerSimonian and Laird methods and meta-regressions were conducted to characterize and compare effect sizes. Mixed effects regression models were used in dose analyses.
RESULTS: A total of 3237 patients with 4911 lesions were included; 43.8%, 19.7%, and 36.5% of lesions received SF-SRS, MF-SRS, or RT, respectively. SF-SRS resulted in improved 1-year LC (92.9% (95% CI: 86.4-97.4%); p = 0.007) compared to RT (81.0% (95% CI: 69.2-90.5%)) with no difference between MF-SRS (82.1%; p = 0.86) and RT. On subgroup analysis of de novo metastases, superior 1-year LC following SF-SRS (95.5% (95% CI: 87.4-99.6%)) was maintained compared to RT (83.6% (95% CI: 70.4-93.5%); p = 0.007). A 4.7% increase in LC was noted for each 10 Gy10 increase in biologically effective dose (BED10 , assuming an alpha/beta = 10) with SRS (p < 0.001). No difference in toxicities were found between SF-SRS (0.4%), MF-SRS (0.2%), or RT (0%). Higher VCF rates were noted following SF-SRS (19.5%) vs. MF-SRS (9.6%; p = 0.039)) with no correlation between dose and VCF rates.
CONCLUSION: SF-SRS resulted in superior LC with a roughly 5% LC benefit for every 10 Gy10 increase in BED10 with higher VCF rates compared to MF-SRS. If LC is the goal of treatment, then SRS may be a preferred treatment modality. However, these results are hypothesis-generating, and prospective randomized clinical trials are indicated to definitively address the question of whether SRS results in improved LC compared to RT.
Full text links
Related Resources
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