Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 20, 2025
Treatment of Liver Metastases Using an Internal Target Volume Method for Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy
Published on: May 8, 2018
Mature Local Control and Reirradiation Rates Comparing Spine Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy With Conventional
K Liang Zeng1, Sten Myrehaug1, Hany Soliman1
1Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Purpose:
Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) improves complete pain response for painful spinal metastases compared with conventional external beam radiation therapy (cEBRT). We report mature local control and reirradiation rates in a large cohort of patients treated with SBRT versus cEBRT enrolled previously in the Canadian Clinical Trials Group Symptom Control 24 phase 2/3 trial.
Methods And Materials:
One hundred thirty-seven of 229 (60%) patients randomized to 24 Gy in 2 SBRT fractions or 20 Gy in 5 cEBRT fractions were retrospectively reviewed. By including all treated spinal segments, we report on 66 patients (119 spine segments) treated with SBRT and 71 patients (169 segments) treated with cEBRT. The primary outcomes were magnetic resonance-based local control and reirradiation rates for each treated spine segment.
Results:
The median follow-up was 11.3 months (interquartile range, 5.3-27.7 months), and median overall survival in the SBRT and cEBRT cohorts were 21.6 (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.3, upper bound not reached) and 18.9 (95% CI, 12.2-29.1) months (P = .428), respectively. The cohorts were balanced with respect to radioresistant histology and presence of mass (paraspinal and/or epidural disease extension). Risk of local failure after SBRT versus cEBRT at 6, 12, and 24 months were 2.8% (95% CI, 0.8%-7.4%) versus 11.2% (95% CI, 6.9%-16.6%), 6.1% (95% CI, 2.5%-12.1%) versus 28.4% (95% CI, 21.3%-35.9%), and 14.8% (95% CI, 8.2-23.1%) versus 35.6% (95% CI, 27.8%-43.6%), respectively (P < .001). cEBRT (hazard ratio [HR], 3.48; 95% CI, 1.94-6.25; P < .001) and presence of mass (HR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.29-3.31; P = .002) independently predicted local failure on multivariable analysis. The 1-year reirradiation rates and median times to reirradiation after SBRT versus cEBRT were 2.2% (95% CI, 0.4-7.0%) versus 15.8% (95% CI, 10.4%-22.3%) (P = .002) and 22.9 months versus 9.5 months, respectively. cEBRT (HR, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.27-5.30; P = .009) and radioresistant histology (HR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.12-3.60; P = .020) independently predicted for reirradiation. Eight of 12 iatrogenic vertebral compression fractures were after SBRT and 4 of 12 after cEBRT; grade 3 adverse fracture effects were isolated to the SBRT cohort (5 of 12).
Conclusions:
Risk of local failure and reirradiation is lower with SBRT compared with cEBRT for spinal metastases. Although the iatrogenic vertebral compression fracture rates were within expectations, grade 3 vertebral compression fractures were isolated to the SBRT cohort.
