Pain response after conventional external beam radiation therapy (cRT) in patients with painful bone metastases is observed in 60% to 70% of patients. The aim of the VERTICAL trial was to investigate whether stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) improves pain response. Methods and Materials: This single-center, phase 2, randomized controlled trial was conducted within the PRESENT cohort, which consists of patients referred for radiation therapy of bone metastases to our tertiary center. Cohort participants with painful bone metastases who gave broad informed consent for randomization were randomly assigned to cRT or SBRT. Only patients in the intervention arm received information about the trial and were offered SBRT (1 Â 18 Gy, 3 Â 10 Gy, or 5 Â 7 Gy), which they could accept or refuse. Patients who refused SBRT underwent standard cRT (1 Â 8 Gy, 5 Â 4 Gy, or 10 Â 3 Gy). Patients in the control arm were not informed. Primary endpoint was pain response at 3 months after radiation therapy.

ObjectiveRadiotherapy is the standard local treatment for patients with painful bone metastases, but effectiveness has primarily been evaluated in trial populations. The aim of this study was to study pain response to palliative radiotherapy in a prospective cohort of unselected patients with bone metastases.MethodsPatients with painful bone metastases referred to the UMC Utrecht for radiotherapy and enrolled in the PRESENT cohort were included in this study. For all patients, pain response to radiotherapy was assessed, and responders were defined as patients with a complete or partial pain response. Patients with stable pain scores, pain increase, or undetermined response were regarded non-responders. Pain scores obtained at baseline and after 2, 4, 6, 8, and 12 weeks following radiotherapy were obtained. Pain response rates of the total treated population, as well as response rates of the assessable patients, were calculated. To measure the percentage of the remaining time spent with pain relief, the net pain relief (NPR) was calculated by dividing the period of pain relief by the period of survival.ResultsOf the 432 patients enrolled in this study, 262 patients (61%) experienced a complete or partial response. In the 390 assessable patients, this percentage was 67%. Median time to response was 4 weeks (range 1–15 weeks), and the NPR was 64%.ConclusionCompared to randomized trial populations, palliative radiotherapy in our unselected patients with bone metastases showed similar pain response rates (61%), with a reasonable duration of this effect.

Background: Predicting oncologic outcomes is essential for optimizing the treatment for patients with cancer. This review examines the feasibility of using Computed Tomography (CT) images of fat density as a prognostic factor in patients with cancer. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane up to March 2020. All studies that mentioned using subcutaneous or visceral adipose tissue (SAT and VAT, respectively) CT characteristics as a prognostic factor for patients with cancer were included. The primary endpoints were any disease-related outcomes in patients with cancer. Results: After screening 1043 studies, ten studies reporting a total of 23ten for SAT and thirteen for VATcomparisons on survival, tumor recurrence and postsurgical infection were included. All ten studies included different types of malignancy: six localized, two metastatic disease, and two both. Five different anatomic landmarks were used to uniformly measure fat density on CT: lumbar (L)4 (n ¼ 4), L3 (n ¼ 2), L4-L5 intervertebral space (n ¼ 2), L5-S1 intervertebral space (n ¼ 1), and the abdomen (n ¼ 1). Overall, six of ten SAT comparisons (60%) and six of thirteen VAT comparisons (46%) reported a significant (p < .05) association of increased SAT or VAT density with an adverse outcome. All remaining nonsignificant comparisons, except one, deviated in the same direction of being predictive for adverse outcomes but failed to reach significance. The median hazard ratio (HR) for the nine SAT and thirteen VAT associations where HRs were given were 1.45 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.97) and 1.90 (95% CI 1.12-2.74), respectively. The binomial sign test and Fisher's method both reported a significant association between both SAT and VAT and adverse outcomes. Conclusion: This review may support the feasibility of using SAT or VAT on CT as a prognostic tool for patients with cancer in predicting adverse outcomes such as survival and tumor recurrence. Future research should standardize radiologic protocol in prospective homogeneous series of patients on each cancer diagnosis group in order to establish accurate parameters to help physicians use CT scan defined characteristics in clinical practice.

No abstract