Reirradiation spine stereotactic body radiation therapy for spinal metastases: systematic review

International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society practice guidelines

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada;
  • 2 Department of Neurosurgery, Tokyo Women’s Medical University, Tokyo, Japan;
  • 3 Neurosurgery Service and Gamma Knife Center, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland;
  • 4 Division of Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, California;
  • 5 Department Neurosurgery, Ruber Internacional Hospital, Madrid, Spain;
  • 6 National Hospital for Neurology & Neurosurgery, University College London, United Kingdom;
  • 7 Department of Functional Neurosurgery, Timone University Hospital, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France;
  • 8 Department of Radiation Oncology and Neurosurgery, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York;
  • 9 Department of Radiation Oncology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; and
  • 10 Department of Neurosurgery, University of California, Los Angeles, California, and HCor Neuroscience, São Paulo, Brazil
Full access

OBJECTIVE

Spinal metastases that recur after conventional palliative radiotherapy have historically been difficult to manage due to concerns of spinal cord toxicity in the retreatment setting. Spine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), also known as stereotactic radiosurgery, is emerging as an effective and safe means of delivering ablative doses to these recurrent tumors. The authors performed a systematic review of the literature to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of spine SBRT specific to previously irradiated spinal metastases.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted, which was specific to SBRT to the spine, using MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Evidence-Based Medicine Database, National Guideline Clearinghouse, and CMA Infobase, with further bibliographic review of appropriate articles. Research questions included: 1) Is retreatment spine SBRT efficacious with respect to local control and symptom control? 2) Is retreatment spine SBRT safe?

RESULTS

The initial literature search retrieved 2263 articles. Of these articles, 160 were potentially relevant, 105 were selected for in-depth review, and 9 studies met all inclusion criteria for analysis. All studies were single-institution series, including 4 retrospective, 3 retrospective series of prospective databases, 1 prospective, and 1 Phase I/II prospective study (low- or very low–quality data). The results indicated that spine SBRT is effective, with a median 1-year local control rate of 76% (range 66%–90%). Improvement in patients’ pain scores post-SBRT ranged from 65% to 81%. Treatment delivery was safe, with crude rates of vertebral body fracture of 12% (range 0%–22%) and radiation-induced myelopathy of 1.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic literature review suggests that SBRT to previously irradiated spinal metastases is safe and effective with respect to both local control and pain relief. Although the evidence is limited to low-quality data, SBRT can be a recommended treatment option for reirradiation.

ABBREVIATIONS BPI = Brief Pain Inventory; cEBRT = conventional palliative fractionated external-beam radiotherapy; CR = complete response; ISRS = International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society; SBRT = stereotactic body radiotherapy; VCF = vertebral compression fracture.

OBJECTIVE

Spinal metastases that recur after conventional palliative radiotherapy have historically been difficult to manage due to concerns of spinal cord toxicity in the retreatment setting. Spine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), also known as stereotactic radiosurgery, is emerging as an effective and safe means of delivering ablative doses to these recurrent tumors. The authors performed a systematic review of the literature to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of spine SBRT specific to previously irradiated spinal metastases.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted, which was specific to SBRT to the spine, using MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Evidence-Based Medicine Database, National Guideline Clearinghouse, and CMA Infobase, with further bibliographic review of appropriate articles. Research questions included: 1) Is retreatment spine SBRT efficacious with respect to local control and symptom control? 2) Is retreatment spine SBRT safe?

RESULTS

The initial literature search retrieved 2263 articles. Of these articles, 160 were potentially relevant, 105 were selected for in-depth review, and 9 studies met all inclusion criteria for analysis. All studies were single-institution series, including 4 retrospective, 3 retrospective series of prospective databases, 1 prospective, and 1 Phase I/II prospective study (low- or very low–quality data). The results indicated that spine SBRT is effective, with a median 1-year local control rate of 76% (range 66%–90%). Improvement in patients’ pain scores post-SBRT ranged from 65% to 81%. Treatment delivery was safe, with crude rates of vertebral body fracture of 12% (range 0%–22%) and radiation-induced myelopathy of 1.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic literature review suggests that SBRT to previously irradiated spinal metastases is safe and effective with respect to both local control and pain relief. Although the evidence is limited to low-quality data, SBRT can be a recommended treatment option for reirradiation.

ABBREVIATIONS BPI = Brief Pain Inventory; cEBRT = conventional palliative fractionated external-beam radiotherapy; CR = complete response; ISRS = International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society; SBRT = stereotactic body radiotherapy; VCF = vertebral compression fracture.

Spinal metastases may cause significant symptoms, ranging from pain to potentially catastrophic neurological compromise. In cases where surgical management is not indicated, conventional palliative fractionated external-beam radiotherapy (cEBRT) has been a standard of care management option. The efficacy of cEBRT has been limited to complete response (CR) rates of 0%–20% and partial response rates of approximately 60%.5 Approximately 20% of patients treated with low-dose cEBRT (e.g., 8 Gy in 1 fraction) will require reirradiation due to pain progression within months of the first treatment course. The need for reirradiation is expected only to increase as more effective surgical, radiation, and systemic therapies continue to result in longer lengths of patient survival.

Management of progressive spinal disease within a previously irradiated volume has been a major challenge given the proximity of several critical structures, in particular, the spinal cord. Respecting the cumulative tolerance of the spinal cord has historically led to conservative practice among radiation oncologists and retreatment with lower biologically effective doses than initially delivered.6,16 This probably explains the disappointing results following reirradiation cEBRT, with a meta-analysis reporting overall response rates of approximately 58% and CR rates ranging from 16% to 28%.12

A recent Phase III randomized trial compared reirradiation cEBRT (8 Gy in a single fraction vs 20 Gy in 5 fractions) for painful, previously irradiated bone metastases, of which 28% were spine metastases. Response to therapy with either fractionation scheme was modest at best, with overall response rates of 45% and 51%, respectively, and CR rates of only 14% and 11%, respectively.6 This suggests that there is a critical need to improve outcomes in these patients.

With the advent of modern radiation planning and image-guided radiotherapy apparatuses, the ability to deliver stereotactic ablative radiation to body targets gave rise to stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), which is also known as spine stereotactic radiosurgery. In fact, the field started with reirradiation as the primary application, and in 1995 Hamilton et al.11 reported the first spine SBRT series (5 patients) based on a rigid spinal immobilization device and delivery of 10 Gy in a single fraction. Milker-Zabel et al.15 further reported on the use of a noninvasive near-rigid external body immobilization and conformal treatment delivery.

Now, with more than a decade of clinical experience, multiple studies have been reported, although they are limited largely to single-institution series. The intent of this systematic literature review was to summarize the literature, determine efficacy and safety of reirradiation SBRT, and provide treatment recommendations on behalf of the International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society (ISRS).

Methods

A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (Fig. 1). The search was limited to data published between January 2005 and May 2015 (to limit data to modern immobilization, planning, and image-verification techniques). Articles were selected for clinical relevance to the following research questions: 1) Is retreatment spine SBRT efficacious with respect to local control and symptom control? 2) Is retreatment spine SBRT safe?

FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses diagram. Figure is available in color online only.

Exclusion criteria included surgical series without reirradiation data, treatment of primary spine/CNS disease, non–peer-reviewed manuscripts, reviews without original data, nonclinical outcomes (radiation planning/physics studies or imaging studies), and case series < 10 patients.

The Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane, CMA Infobase, and National Guidelines Clearinghouse databases were searched (Table 1). A total of 2263 citations were identified (MEDLINE, n = 699; Embase, n = 1499; CMA Infobase, n = 1; Cochrane Evidence-Based Medicine Database, n = 14; and National Guidelines Clearinghouse, n = 23). After eliminating duplicate citations (n = 258) and applying initial exclusion criteria, 160 potentially relevant abstracts were selected for in-depth review by independent duplicate-data extraction.

TABLE 1.

Database search terms

No.Search Term
1exp Spinal Neoplasms
2exp Spinal Cord Neoplasms
31 or 2
4exp Radiosurgery
5exp Radiotherapy
6(stereotactic adj5 (radiotherapy or radiosurgery or radiation or irradiation)).mp.
7sbrt.mp.
8sabr.mp.
9or/4-8
103 and 9
11limit 10 to (editorial or letter or news)
1210 not 11
13limit 12 to (English language and humans)
14limit 13 to yr=“2005 -Current”
15Retreatment
16retreatment.mp.
17reirradiation.mp.
1815 or 16 or 17
1914 and 18
2014 not 19

The refined exclusion criteria included the following parameters: must define and report local control specific to reirradiation SBRT, treatment of metastatic disease alone or, if combined with primary tumors, then data for reirradiation SBRT segregated such that outcomes could be determined, use of hypofractionation doses (> 5 Gy/fraction), and use of modern planning (fusion of CT simulation data set with MRI or CT myelogram, inverse planning, robust immobilization, and online imaging). Seven studies met all inclusion criteria; an additional 2 studies were selected based on unpublished supplementary information provided by the corresponding author. Levels of evidence for recommendations are described in Table 2. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria were used to critically evaluate the quality of each data set, as reported in Table 3.

TABLE 2.

Levels of evidence

Evidence LevelDescription
Level I evidenceEvidence from well-designed, randomized controlled clinical trials, including meta-analyses
Level II evidenceEvidence from comparative clinical studies (nonrandomized cohort studies, case-control studies, less well-designed randomized controlled trials)
Level III evidenceLow-quality evidence from case series, comparative studies w/ historical controls, case reports, expert opinion, & flawed randomized controlled trials
TABLE 3.

Details of radiation delivery for reviewed articles

Authors & YearStudy TypeTargets Treated/Total No. of PatientsMedian Initial RT DoseRetreatment ModalityRetreatment DoseStudy Quality (GRADE)
Sahgal et al., 2009Retrospective37/2536 Gy/14 frxCyberKnife24 Gy/3 frx to 60% IDLVery low
Choi et al., 2010Retrospective review of prospective database51/4240 Gy (24.2–50.4)CyberKnifeMedian marginal dose 20 Gy/2 frx (range 18/1–25/5)Very low
Garg et al., 2011Prospective Phase I/II63/5933 Gy (30–45)IG-IMRT30 Gy/5 frx (8); 27 Gy/3 frx (50); 20 Gy/5 frx (1)Low
Damast et al., 2011Retrospective92/9230 Gy (8–66)IG-IMRT42 targets: 20 Gy/5 frx;55 targets: 30 Gy/5 frxVery low
Mahadevan et al., 2011Retrospective81/6030 Gy (8–46)CyberKnife25–30 Gy/5 frx & 24 Gy/3 frxVery low
Ahmed et al., 2012Prospective85/66; 22 were retreated30 Gy (8–50.4)IG-IMRT24 Gy/3 frxLow
Chang et al., 2012Retrospective180/142; 54 had previous RT39 Gy Gy2*CyberKnife20.6 Gy/1 frx (18.2–23.7)Very low
Thibault et al., 2014Retrospective review of prospective database71/37; 11 had previous RT30 GyIG-IMRT24 Gy/2 frxLow
Thibault et al., 201522Retrospective review of prospective database56/4024 Gy/2 frxIG-IMRT30 Gy/4 frxLow

frx = fraction; GRADE = Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation; IDL = isodose line; IG-IMRT = image-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy; RT = radiation therapy.

Gy2 is a way to normalize radiation doses that may have been given in different dose/fractionation schemes. It converts all doses to the equivalent dose in 2 Gy per day fractions.

Data Summary

Following the review of 2263 articles, 160 were selected for detailed review, of which 9 met inclusion criteria. One manuscript that reported on 2 Phase I/II trials was identified,9 as were 4 retrospective series,3,7,14,17 3 retrospective series of prospective databases,4,21,22 and 1 prospective report.1 Two publications were from 1 institution, which may have introduced an element of bias when providing generalizable results. The number of spinal segments treated in each publication ranged from 11 to 97 segments.

Reported experiences were heterogeneous with regard to patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics such as histology, presence of epidural disease, prior treatments (resection, median initial radiation dose), radiation delivery technique, and follow-up approach (imaging type, frequency of imaging, clinical examination). Reported retreatment regimens ranged from single-fraction SBRT to multiple-fraction SBRT (2–5 fractions), and median total doses ranged from 20 to 30 Gy. Dose to the critical neural structures (spinal cord, thecal sac) also ranged widely across studies, dependent on fractionation scheme used for retreatment and prior radiation dose received. Selected treatment details are reported in Table 3, and clinical outcomes are listed in Table 4.

TABLE 4.

Spine SBRT reirradiation systematic review: treatment outcomes

Authors & YearMedian FU in Mos (range)FU ScheduleDefinition of ProgressionLocal ControlOverall SurvivalSymptom Assessment ScalePain Response
Sahgal et al., 20097 (1–48)Not definedRadiographic or neurological1 yr, 82%Median 21 mosNRNR
Choi et al., 20107 (4–27)MRI every 2–3 mosRadiographic1 yr, 73%1 yr, 68%NR65% improvement in pain
Garg et al., 201117.6 (0.9–67.5)MRI every 3 mosRadiographic1 yr, 76%Median 22.5 mos; 1 yr, 76%BPIImprovement in pain at 6 mos
Damast et al., 201112.1 (0.2–63.6)MRI every 3–4 mosRadiographic1 yr all, 66%Median 13.6 mosNR77% improvement in pain
Mahadevan et al., 201112 (4–36)CT 1 mo post, otherwise not definedRadiographic or neurological1 yr, 90%Median 11 mosNR79% improvement in pain
Ahmed et al., 20128.2MRI at 2 mos & then every 6 mos ± PETRadiographic1 yr, 83%1 yr, 28%FACT-GNR
Chang et al., 201217.3MRI/PET at 3, 6, & 12 mosRadiographic1 yr, 81%Median 11 mosNR80.8% control rate at 1 yr
Thibault et al., 201412.3 (1.2–55.4)MRI every 2–3 mosRadiographic1 yr, 73%NRNRNR
Thibault et al., 2015226.8 (0.9–39)NRRadiographic1 yr, 81%Median 10.0 mosNRNR

FACT-G = Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General; FU = follow-up; NR = not reported.

Results

Patient Selection

Study patient populations were heterogeneous; however, some similarities in selection criteria were observed. With regard to clinical presentation, no study allowed patients with acute malignant epidural spinal cord compression. Three of 9 studies allowed surgical stabilization prior to SBRT delivery, and 65% of patients studied (range 8%–100%) had tumors classically recognized as radioresistant including sarcoma, renal cell carcinoma, non–small cell lung carcinoma, melanoma, and gastrointestinal tract tumors.10

Local Control and Overall Survival With Reirradiation SBRT Following cEBRT

Outcomes from 3 nonrandomized prospective case series, 1 Phase I/II prospective study, and 4 retrospective series (411 treated spinal segments in total) were identified for analyses. Definition of local failure varied from radiographic in-field progression to radiographic and/or clinical progression. Follow-up protocols varied from posttreatment CT scan, standard MRI follow-up, to undefined. The median overall survival ranged from 10 to 22.5 months. The median follow-up was 12.1 months (range 7–17.6 months). The median local control at 1 year was 76% (range 66%–90%). With regard to pattern of failure, epidural disease was the most common site of progression, as reported by Choi et al.4 (38%) and Thibault et al.21 (63%). Similarly, 2 other studies identified higher rates of failure in patients with disease close to the spinal cord.3,9

Local Control and Overall Survival With Reirradiation SBRT Following SBRT

One article uniquely reported on patients treated with SBRT to salvage post-SBRT failures. Local control was defined as radiographic progression on MRI. With a median follow-up of 6.8 months, the median overall survival was 10.0 months. The 1-year local control rate was 81%. The epidural space was the most common site of disease progression (85%). Despite this aggressive radiation course, no vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) or Grade III toxicity were observed.

Pain Control

Heterogeneity was observed with respect to reporting pain outcomes, and in the 5 series that did report on pain, the assessment tools were not consistent. In this review, a crude assessment based on both subjective and objective measurement suggests that pain control following SBRT was observed in 65%–81% of cases. Four studies presented outcomes based on subjective physician/patient reports,3,4,7,14 and 1 study9 formally assessed pain using the validated Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). Based on the prospectively reported BPI, significantly improved pain control is seen at 1, 3, and 6 months after retreatment with SBRT.9 Further details of pain control in this patient group pooled with patients without prior radiotherapy were reported in 2012.25

Adverse Events Following Reirradiation Spine SBRT

Based on the 9 articles, Table 5 summarizes reported adverse events. Only 3 articles specifically reported VCF as an adverse event, and of the 186 spinal segments, 22 developed VCF (12%). The highest risk of fracture was observed in patients treated with single-fraction therapy (12 of 54). With respect to radiation-induced myelopathy, of the 411 spinal segments treated, 8 cases of symptomatic myelopathy were observed (crude risk 1.2%). No other Grade III–IV toxicities were reported.

TABLE 5.

Spine SBRT reirradiation systematic review: adverse events

Authors & YearToxicity ScaleNo. of VCFsNo. of Neurological Adverse EventsGrade III–IV Toxicity, Other
Sahgal et al., 2009NCI-CTCAE v3.0NR00
Choi et al., 2010NRNR10
Garg et al., 2011NCI-CTCAE v2.0, McCormick scaleNR20
Damast et al., 2011NR900
Mahadevan et al., 2011NRNR40
Ahmed et al., 2012NCI-CTCAE v3.0110
Chang et al., 2012NCI-CTCAE v2.01200
Thibault et al., 2014NRNRNR0
Thibault et al., 201522NR000

NCI-CTCAE = National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events.

ISRS Recommendations

ISRS recommendations are listed in Table 6. Given the complex clinical nature of patients with progressive painful metastases following radiation, multidisciplinary assessment is essential to patient management. In particular, for patients with high-grade epidural disease or instability, a surgical consultation should be obtained prior to radiation. In those patients deemed appropriate for reirradiation, the evidence suggests spine SBRT as a recommended treatment strategy following either conventionally delivered radiotherapy or to salvage SBRT failures, with the intent to optimize local control and pain control. No specific SBRT regimen has been proven superior to another, and the optimal dose and fractionation remain an area of active investigation. Paramount to any SBRT plan is careful delineation of the critical neural structures and strict adherence to safe dose limits. Reirradiation spinal cord dose limits have been reported specific to both single- and multifraction SBRT, and recommended as a benchmark for safe practice.20 It is recognized that the evidence is limited. These suggestions for practice represent expert interpretation of the literature and understanding of clinical practice.

TABLE 6.

ISRS recommendations

RecommendationLevel of Evidence
Following cEBRT, retreatment w/ SBRT is a recommended therapeutic option in suitable patients based on multidisciplinary assessmentIII
Following SBRT, retreatment w/ SBRT is a treatment option in suitable patients based on multidisciplinary assessmentIII
For patients w/ clinical features concerning for malignant epidural spinal cord compression, mechanical instability, or baseline vertebral body compression fracture, the radiation oncologist should consult a spine surgeon before the patient undergoes SBRTII

Discussion

The management of vertebral metastases previously irradiated with cEBRT is a major therapeutic challenge. The fear of causing structural instability and injury to the intimately associated spinal cord has led many to retreat with an even lower dose of cEBRT than previously delivered. This approach has been proven in a randomized trial to have limited therapeutic impact, with a 2-month overall response rate of 45%–51% and a CR rate of only 11%–14%.6

One barrier to the use of retreatment SBRT may be the perceived notion of the poor prognosis for this patient population. However, the median survival for patients following retreatment SBRT ranged from 10 to 22.5 months based on our systematic review. This highlights the need for aggressive therapeutic strategies that are specific to this patient population to optimize local control and symptomatic relief. Spine SBRT was, in fact, developed specifically for reirradiation, with local control rates > 75% and demonstrable improvements in pain observed in this systematic review. Therefore, we conclude that retreatment SBRT has been shown to be an effective and durable therapy.

Another perceived barrier to the adoption of SBRT to reirradiate spinal metastases was an expected excessive rate of adverse events. However, we observed a modest toxicity profile. The most significant adverse effect remains VCF, as observed in the de novo indication. Our review concludes a crude vertebral fracture rate of 12% (in keeping with pooled multi-institutional data).18 Strategies to mitigate this risk are still in development; factors such as significant lytic disease, baseline fracture, treatment with > 19 Gy per fraction, and/or a high baseline spinal instability neoplastic score are risk factors warranting a multidisciplinary case discussion with a spinal surgeon.18

With respect to radiation myelopathy, which is considered the most feared complication within the discipline of radiation oncology, we observed a low-risk toxicity profile. The crude risk was 1.2%. As experience with reirradiation SBRT has increased globally, guidelines have been published as a benchmark for safe practice to mitigate the risk.19,20 This adverse event is no longer considered a barrier to spine SBRT.

Patterns of failure analysis, which were specified in 3 of the 9 series, confirmed epidural progression as the most common site of failure, with 2 other series demonstrating treatment failure as more common in patients with disease in proximity to critical neural structures. This is similar to that observed in the de novo data for spine SBRT.4,9,17 Careful delineation of the spinal cord and treating to the maximal spinal cord dose limit24 are strategies to reduce the risk of failure.

In addition, because it has been shown that downgrading epidural disease from high grade to low grade can improve outcomes following SBRT, surgical consideration with less invasive approaches is recommended for high-grade epidural disease, even if asymptomatic.13 Strategies such as intraoperative brachytherapy to maximize dose within the epidural region while shielding the spinal cord have been reported; however, this remains a new and highly specialized technique with limited application.8

Retreatment with a second course of SBRT for SBRT failures, although more fractionated to exploit the capacity for normal tissue repair between fractions, has been prospectively reported to be safe and effective.22 Thibault et al. reported on 56 spinal segments, 24 of which had also undergone prior cEBRT followed by SBRT. Even in this heavily pretreated patient cohort, no radiation-induced VCFs or myelopathy cases were identified. Local control rates were encouraging, with a 12-month local control rate of 80.6%. This is an area of active investigation because there will be increasing need to develop the evidence specific to SBRT failures.

Our recommendations are based on 9 publications, only 1 of which was a prospective, single-institution Phase I/II study. Although the level of evidence is low to very low, the outcomes were consistent with respect to durable local control and high rates of pain control. Several limitations are noted in this analysis. Only 9 reports of the 160 that were initially deemed eligible were in fact suitable for final analysis, with significant heterogeneity in patient, treatment, and tumor characteristics.

With respect to outcomes, differences in the definition of local control and stringency of posttreatment assessments confound definitive conclusions with respect to local control. Furthermore, an experienced neuroradiologist is imperative to assess whether changes seen on imaging are related to disease progression versus radiation-induced change, because osseous pseudoprogression has been reported and is an active area of investigation.2

Similarly, for pain control, the lack of standardization in the pain assessment tool and time points at which response was determined are confounding factors. The SPIne response assessment in Neuro-Oncology (SPINO) group was formed to address such issues. Recommendations have been reported as a first step to standardizing radiation planning, imaging follow-up practices, and response assessment for pain control and local control.23 However, despite these limitations, there is consistency with respect to the outcomes reported in our review of the literature. Therefore, we can conclude that reirradiation SBRT is a treatment option that can yield local control and pain control rates superior to cEBRT, and should be considered in selected patients based on multidisciplinary case discussion.

Conclusions

This systematic review was designed to answer 2 specific clinical questions regarding the management of previously irradiated vertebral body metastases based on best clinical evidence: 1) Is retreatment spine SBRT efficacious with respect to local control and symptom control? 2) Is retreatment spine SBRT safe?

Because spine SBRT is demonstrated to provide symptomatic relief of pain and to confer a local control benefit, the current recommendation is for spine SBRT to be strongly considered as a treatment option, especially in comparison with conventionally fractionated reirradiation treatment.

Disclaimer

These guidelines should not be considered inclusive of all methods of care or exclusive of other methods or care reasonably directed to obtain similar results. Physicians must make the ultimate judgment on the basis of the characteristics and circumstances of each individual patient. Adherence to this guideline will not ensure successful treatment in every situation. The authors of these guidelines and the International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society assume no liability for the information, conclusions, or recommendations contained in this report.

Disclosures

Mr. Paddick is a consultant for Elekta Instruments. Dr. Sahgal is a consultant for Varian Medical Systems and Hoffmann-La Roche Limited; has received reimbursement for travel accommodations/expenses and honoraria for previous educational seminars from Elekta, Varian Medical Systems, and Medtronic Kyphoplasty division; and has received research grants from Elekta. Dr. Ma has active patents with the Regents of University of California. Dr. Slotman has received honoraria, travel support, and research grants from Varian Medical Systems and ViewRay (not related to this work). Dr. Myrehaug has received travel support from Novartis and honoraria from Pfizer (not related to this work). Dr. Régis has received consultancy honoraria from Medtronic and Elekta.

Author Contributions

Conception and design: Sahgal, Hayashi, Levivier, Ma, Martinez-Alvarez, Paddick, Régis, Ryu, Slotman, De Salles. Analysis and interpretation of data: Myrehaug, Sahgal. Drafting the article: Myrehaug, De Salles. Critically revising the article: Sahgal, Paddick, Ryu, Slotman, De Salles. Reviewed submitted version of manuscript: all authors. Approved the final version of the manuscript on behalf of all authors: Myrehaug.

References

  • 1

    Ahmed KA, Stauder MC, Miller RC, Bauer HJ, Rose PS, Olivier KR, : Stereotactic body radiation therapy in spinal metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 82:e803e809, 2012

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Amini B, Beaman CB, Madewell JE, Allen PK, Rhines LD, Tatsui CE, : Osseous pseudoprogression in vertebral bodies treated with stereotactic radiosurgery: a secondary analysis of prospective Phase I/II clinical trials. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 37:387392, 2016

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Chang UK, Cho WI, Kim MS, Cho CK, Lee DH, Rhee CH: Local tumor control after retreatment of spinal metastasis using stereotactic body radiotherapy; comparison with initial treatment group. Acta Oncol 51:589595, 2012

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Choi CY, Adler JR, Gibbs IC, Chang SD, Jackson PS, Minn AY, : Stereotactic radiosurgery for treatment of spinal metastases recurring in close proximity to previously irradiated spinal cord. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 78:499506, 2010

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Chow E, Harris K, Fan G, Tsao M, Sze WM: Palliative radiotherapy trials for bone metastases: a systematic review. J Clin Oncol 25:14231436, 2007

  • 6

    Chow E, van der Linden YM, Roos D, Hartsell WF, Hoskin P, Wu JS, : Single versus multiple fractions of repeat radiation for painful bone metastases: a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol 15:164171, 2014

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Damast S, Wright J, Bilsky M, Hsu M, Zhang Z, Lovelock M, : Impact of dose on local failure rates after image-guided reirradiation of recurrent paraspinal metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 81:819826, 2011

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Folkert MR, Bilsky MH, Cohen GN, Zaider M, Lis E, Krol G, : Intraoperative and percutaneous iridium-192 high-dose-rate brachytherapy for previously irradiated lesions of the spine. Brachytherapy 12:449456, 2013

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Garg AK, Wang XS, Shiu AS, Allen P, Yang J, McAleer MF, : Prospective evaluation of spinal reirradiation by using stereotactic body radiation therapy: The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center experience. Cancer 117:35093516, 2011

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Gerszten PC, Mendel E, Yamada Y: Radiotherapy and radiosurgery for metastatic spine disease: what are the options, indications, and outcomes? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34 (22 Suppl):S78S92, 2009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Hamilton AJ, Lulu BA, Fosmire H, Stea B, Cassady JR: Preliminary clinical experience with linear accelerator-based spinal stereotactic radiosurgery. Neurosurgery 36:311319, 1995

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Huisman M, van den Bosch MA, Wijlemans JW, van Vulpen M, van der Linden YM, Verkooijen HM: Effectiveness of reirradiation for painful bone metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 84:814, 2012

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Laufer I, Iorgulescu JB, Chapman T, Lis E, Shi W, Zhang Z, : Local disease control for spinal metastases following “separation surgery” and adjuvant hypofractionated or high-dose single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery: outcome analysis in 186 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 18:207214, 2013

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Mahadevan A, Floyd S, Wong E, Jeyapalan S, Groff M, Kasper E: Stereotactic body radiotherapy reirradiation for recurrent epidural spinal metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 81:15001505, 2011

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Milker-Zabel S, Zabel A, Thilmann C, Schlegel W, Wannenmacher M, Debus J: Clinical results of retreatment of vertebral bone metastases by stereotactic conformal radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 55:162167, 2003

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Rades D, Stalpers LJ, Veninga T, Schulte R, Hoskin PJ, Alberti W: [Effectiveness and toxicity of reirradiation (Re-RT) for metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC).] Strahlenther Onkol 181:595600, 2005 (Ger)

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Sahgal A, Ames C, Chou D, Ma L, Huang K, Xu W, : Stereotactic body radiotherapy is effective salvage therapy for patients with prior radiation of spinal metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 74:723731, 2009

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Sahgal A, Atenafu EG, Chao S, Al-Omair A, Boehling N, Balagamwala EH, : Vertebral compression fracture after spine stereotactic body radiotherapy: a multi-institutional analysis with a focus on radiation dose and the spinal instability neoplastic score. J Clin Oncol 31:34263431, 2013

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Sahgal A, Ma L, Weinberg V, Gibbs IC, Chao S, Chang UK, : Reirradiation human spinal cord tolerance for stereotactic body radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 82:107116, 2012

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Sahgal A, Weinberg V, Ma L, Chang E, Chao S, Muacevic A, : Probabilities of radiation myelopathy specific to stereotactic body radiation therapy to guide safe practice. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 85:341347, 2013

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Thibault I, Al-Omair A, Masucci GL, Masson-Côté L, Lochray F, Korol R, : Spine stereotactic body radiotherapy for renal cell cancer spinal metastases: analysis of outcomes and risk of vertebral compression fracture. J Neurosurg Spine 21:711718, 2014

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Thibault I, Campbell M, Tseng CL, Atenafu EG, Letourneau D, Yu E, : Salvage stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) following in-field failure of initial SBRT for spinal metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 93:353360, 2015

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Thibault I, Chang EL, Sheehan J, Ahluwalia MS, Guckenberger M, Sohn MJ, : Response assessment after stereotactic body radiotherapy for spinal metastasis: a report from the SPIne response assessment in Neuro-Oncology (SPINO) group. Lancet Oncol 16:e595e603, 2015

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Tseng CL, Sussman MS, Atenafu EG, Letourneau D, Ma L, Soliman H, : Magnetic resonance imaging assessment of spinal cord and cauda equina motion in supine patients with spinal metastases planned for spine stereotactic body radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 91:9951002, 2015

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Wang XS, Rhines LD, Shiu AS, Yang JN, Selek U, Gning I, : Stereotactic body radiation therapy for management of spinal metastases in patients without spinal cord compression: a phase 1-2 trial. Lancet Oncol 13:395402, 2012

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

Contributor Notes

Correspondence Sten Myrehaug, University of Toronto, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2075 Bayview Ave., Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada. email: sten.myrehaug@sunnybrook.ca.

INCLUDE WHEN CITING Published online July 14, 2017; DOI: 10.3171/2017.2.SPINE16976.

Disclosures Mr. Paddick is a consultant for Elekta Instruments. Dr. Sahgal is a consultant for Varian Medical Systems and Hoffmann-La Roche Limited; has received reimbursement for travel accommodations/expenses and honoraria for previous educational seminars from Elekta, Varian Medical Systems, and Medtronic Kyphoplasty division; and has received research grants from Elekta. Dr. Ma has active patents with the Regents of University of California. Dr. Slotman has received honoraria, travel support, and research grants from Varian Medical Systems and ViewRay (not related to this work). Dr. Myrehaug has received travel support from Novartis and honoraria from Pfizer (not related to this work). Dr. Régis has received consultancy honoraria from Medtronic and Elekta.

  • View in gallery

    Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses diagram. Figure is available in color online only.

  • 1

    Ahmed KA, Stauder MC, Miller RC, Bauer HJ, Rose PS, Olivier KR, : Stereotactic body radiation therapy in spinal metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 82:e803e809, 2012

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Amini B, Beaman CB, Madewell JE, Allen PK, Rhines LD, Tatsui CE, : Osseous pseudoprogression in vertebral bodies treated with stereotactic radiosurgery: a secondary analysis of prospective Phase I/II clinical trials. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 37:387392, 2016

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Chang UK, Cho WI, Kim MS, Cho CK, Lee DH, Rhee CH: Local tumor control after retreatment of spinal metastasis using stereotactic body radiotherapy; comparison with initial treatment group. Acta Oncol 51:589595, 2012

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Choi CY, Adler JR, Gibbs IC, Chang SD, Jackson PS, Minn AY, : Stereotactic radiosurgery for treatment of spinal metastases recurring in close proximity to previously irradiated spinal cord. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 78:499506, 2010

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Chow E, Harris K, Fan G, Tsao M, Sze WM: Palliative radiotherapy trials for bone metastases: a systematic review. J Clin Oncol 25:14231436, 2007

  • 6

    Chow E, van der Linden YM, Roos D, Hartsell WF, Hoskin P, Wu JS, : Single versus multiple fractions of repeat radiation for painful bone metastases: a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol 15:164171, 2014

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Damast S, Wright J, Bilsky M, Hsu M, Zhang Z, Lovelock M, : Impact of dose on local failure rates after image-guided reirradiation of recurrent paraspinal metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 81:819826, 2011

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Folkert MR, Bilsky MH, Cohen GN, Zaider M, Lis E, Krol G, : Intraoperative and percutaneous iridium-192 high-dose-rate brachytherapy for previously irradiated lesions of the spine. Brachytherapy 12:449456, 2013

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Garg AK, Wang XS, Shiu AS, Allen P, Yang J, McAleer MF, : Prospective evaluation of spinal reirradiation by using stereotactic body radiation therapy: The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center experience. Cancer 117:35093516, 2011

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Gerszten PC, Mendel E, Yamada Y: Radiotherapy and radiosurgery for metastatic spine disease: what are the options, indications, and outcomes? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34 (22 Suppl):S78S92, 2009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Hamilton AJ, Lulu BA, Fosmire H, Stea B, Cassady JR: Preliminary clinical experience with linear accelerator-based spinal stereotactic radiosurgery. Neurosurgery 36:311319, 1995

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Huisman M, van den Bosch MA, Wijlemans JW, van Vulpen M, van der Linden YM, Verkooijen HM: Effectiveness of reirradiation for painful bone metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 84:814, 2012

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Laufer I, Iorgulescu JB, Chapman T, Lis E, Shi W, Zhang Z, : Local disease control for spinal metastases following “separation surgery” and adjuvant hypofractionated or high-dose single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery: outcome analysis in 186 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 18:207214, 2013

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Mahadevan A, Floyd S, Wong E, Jeyapalan S, Groff M, Kasper E: Stereotactic body radiotherapy reirradiation for recurrent epidural spinal metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 81:15001505, 2011

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Milker-Zabel S, Zabel A, Thilmann C, Schlegel W, Wannenmacher M, Debus J: Clinical results of retreatment of vertebral bone metastases by stereotactic conformal radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 55:162167, 2003

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Rades D, Stalpers LJ, Veninga T, Schulte R, Hoskin PJ, Alberti W: [Effectiveness and toxicity of reirradiation (Re-RT) for metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC).] Strahlenther Onkol 181:595600, 2005 (Ger)

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Sahgal A, Ames C, Chou D, Ma L, Huang K, Xu W, : Stereotactic body radiotherapy is effective salvage therapy for patients with prior radiation of spinal metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 74:723731, 2009

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Sahgal A, Atenafu EG, Chao S, Al-Omair A, Boehling N, Balagamwala EH, : Vertebral compression fracture after spine stereotactic body radiotherapy: a multi-institutional analysis with a focus on radiation dose and the spinal instability neoplastic score. J Clin Oncol 31:34263431, 2013

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Sahgal A, Ma L, Weinberg V, Gibbs IC, Chao S, Chang UK, : Reirradiation human spinal cord tolerance for stereotactic body radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 82:107116, 2012

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Sahgal A, Weinberg V, Ma L, Chang E, Chao S, Muacevic A, : Probabilities of radiation myelopathy specific to stereotactic body radiation therapy to guide safe practice. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 85:341347, 2013

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Thibault I, Al-Omair A, Masucci GL, Masson-Côté L, Lochray F, Korol R, : Spine stereotactic body radiotherapy for renal cell cancer spinal metastases: analysis of outcomes and risk of vertebral compression fracture. J Neurosurg Spine 21:711718, 2014

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Thibault I, Campbell M, Tseng CL, Atenafu EG, Letourneau D, Yu E, : Salvage stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) following in-field failure of initial SBRT for spinal metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 93:353360, 2015

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Thibault I, Chang EL, Sheehan J, Ahluwalia MS, Guckenberger M, Sohn MJ, : Response assessment after stereotactic body radiotherapy for spinal metastasis: a report from the SPIne response assessment in Neuro-Oncology (SPINO) group. Lancet Oncol 16:e595e603, 2015

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Tseng CL, Sussman MS, Atenafu EG, Letourneau D, Ma L, Soliman H, : Magnetic resonance imaging assessment of spinal cord and cauda equina motion in supine patients with spinal metastases planned for spine stereotactic body radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 91:9951002, 2015

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Wang XS, Rhines LD, Shiu AS, Yang JN, Selek U, Gning I, : Stereotactic body radiation therapy for management of spinal metastases in patients without spinal cord compression: a phase 1-2 trial. Lancet Oncol 13:395402, 2012

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 2 0 0
Full Text Views 2430 1091 77
PDF Downloads 1326 660 55
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0