Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 28, 2025
Treatment of Liver Metastases Using an Internal Target Volume Method for Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy
Published on: May 8, 2018
Practice Patterns and Perspectives on Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for the Metastatic Spine From Lower- and
Rima Sanjay Pathak1, Anil Tibdewal1, Rajesh Kinhikar2
1Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India.
Purpose:
We wanted to understand the current practice patterns and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) utilization for spine metastases in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
Methods:
A questionnaire was designed to identify the current practice patterns of treating spine metastases, uptake of spine SBRT in routine care, dose fractionations commonly used, and the perceived benefits and toxicities of using ablative doses. Individuals registering for a spine SBRT workshop were requested to answer the questionnaire.
Results:
We received 395 responses from radiation oncologists (ROs) working in 12 different LMICs. The majority of respondents were from an academic institute (57.5%). Two hundred seventy-four respondents further identified themselves from the government/public sector (44.89%), corporate/private sector (47.89%), not-for-profit organization (5.4%), or public-private partnership (5.4%). The respondents indicated that 8.43%, 27.46%, 41.73%, and 10.04% of the spine metastases patients are treated using clinical marking, X-ray-based, 3D conformal radiation therapy, and SBRT, respectively. A third of the respondents did not have any experience of spine SBRT; those with high-volume practice were predominantly from an academic institute. The majority of respondents would use spine SBRT to reduce pain severity (71.9%) and achieve durable pain control (61.01%) in the setting of oligometastases (92.73%) and reirradiation (56.69%). Respondents preferred 3- to 5-fraction regimens (64.9%) over 1-2 fractions (33.68%). The top three reasons for not using spine SBRT were resource constraints (50%), lack of machine (37.11%), and lack of training (27.34%).
Conclusion:
There is heterogeneity in spine SBRT practice and utilization between academic and nonacademic institutes. Resource and infrastructure constraints along with lack of training are limiting the use of SBRT among ROs from LMICs. Collaborative studies from LMICs will help in resolving unique challenges posed by resource constraints.
