Stereotactic body radiation therapy versus conventional external beam radiotherapy for spinal metastases: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Henry C.Y. Wong*, Shing Fung Lee, Adrian Wai Chan, Saverio Caini, Peter Hoskin, Charles B. Simone, Peter Johnstone, Yvette van der Linden, Joanne M. van der Velden, Emily Martin, Sara Alcorn, Candice Johnstone, J. Isabelle Choi, Gustavo Nader Marta, Eva Oldenburger, Srinivas Raman, Agata Rembielak, Vassilios Vassiliou, Pierluigi Bonomo, Quynh Nhu NguyenEdward Chow, Samuel Ryu

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

Abstract

Introduction: This study aimed to compare SBRT and cEBRT for treating spinal metastases through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched up to 6 May 2023 for RCTs comparing SBRT and cEBRT for spinal metastases. Overall and complete pain response, local progression, overall survival, quality of life and adverse events were extracted. Data were pooled using random-effects models. Results were reported as risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes, and hazard ratios (HRs) for time-to-event outcomes, along with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 statistic. Results: Three RCTs were identified involving 642 patients. No differences were seen in overall pain response comparing SBRT and cEBRT (RR at 3 months: 1.12, 95% CI, 0.74–1.70, p = 0.59; RR at 6 months: 1.29, 95% CI, 0.97–1.72, p = 0.08). Only two of three studies presented complete pain response data. SBRT demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in complete pain response compared to cEBRT (RR at 3 months: 2.52; 95% CI, 1.58–4.01; P < 0.0001; RR at 6 months: 2.48; 95% CI, 1.23–4.99; P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in local progression and overall survival. Adverse events were similar, except for any grade radiation dermatitis, which was significantly lower in SBRT arm (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.03–0.96, P = 0.04). Conclusion: SBRT is a safe treatment option for spine metastases. It may provide better complete pain response compared to cEBRT. Additional trials are needed to determine the potential benefits of SBRT in specific patient subsets.

Original languageEnglish
Article number109914
Number of pages9
JournalRadiotherapy and Oncology
Volume189
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2023

Keywords

  • Bone Neoplasms/secondary
  • Conformal
  • Meta-Analysis
  • Pain Management
  • Radiotherapy
  • Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Stereotactic body radiation therapy versus conventional external beam radiotherapy for spinal metastases: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this