Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 21, 2025
Treatment of Liver Metastases Using an Internal Target Volume Method for Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy
Published on: May 8, 2018
Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Versus Conventional Radiation Therapy for Painful Spinal Metastases: A
Omer Gal1, Robert J Rothrock2, Alonso N Gutierrez3
1Department of Radiation Oncology, Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, Florida.
Purpose:
Recent randomized trials have compared the efficacy and safety of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) with those of standard conventional external beam radiation therapy (cEBRT) for the treatment of painful spinal metastases. We conducted a composite analysis of these trials in order to inform current practice using pooled outcomes.
Methods And Materials:
Data from each randomized trial were abstracted from the final publications with biologically effective doses (BEDs) recalculated for SBRT and cEBRT. Primary outcome measures were overall pain response (OR) and complete pain response (CR) rates at 1, 3, and 6 months and rates of vertebral compression fracture. Random effects models were used to estimate primary outcome measures, and meta-regression assessed the effect of BED.
Results:
Four prospective randomized clinical trials published between 2018 and 2024 were included, with a total of 686 patients (383 and 303 in the SBRT and cEBRT groups, respectively). Dose and fraction (fx) number ranged from 24 Gy/1 fx to 48.5 Gy/10 fx for the SBRT group (median BED using an α-to-β ratio of 10, 50 Gy) and from 8 Gy/1 fx to 30 Gy/10 fx for the cEBRT group (median BED using an α-to-β ratio of 10, 28 Gy). The 1-, 3-, and 6-month OR rates for SBRT and cEBRT were similar: 53.6%, 52.4%, and 58.8% versus 48.4%, 47.9%, and 43.8%, respectively (p > .05). The 3-month CR rate was significantly higher for SBRT than for cEBRT (31.9% vs 14.8%; risk ratio, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.48-3.45; p < .001), but not the 6-month rate (34.4% vs 16.3%; risk ratio, 1.83; 95% CI, 0.74-4.53; p = .194). Vertebral compression fracture rates were similar at 17.3% and 18.4% for SBRT and cEBRT, respectively. No significant dose-dependent effect was observed with increasing BED for any efficacy or safety outcomes.
Conclusions:
OR rates are similar, but CR rates appear higher with SBRT than with cEBRT, yet no dose-dependent effects were identified despite approximately 1.8 × BED dose with SBRT.
