Search

Pain flare is a well-recognized side-effect of palliative radiotherapy for the treatment of painful bone metastases, with recent randomized data showing incidence rates up to 35%. The impact of pain flare has been associated with worsening immobility, anxiety, depression and quality of life. The use of dexamethasone has recently been supported as an effective option in reducing radiation-induced pain flare based on the NCIC Clinical Trials Group (NCIC CTG) Symptom Control 23 (SC.23) randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Despite this, conflicting opinions exist, and standard clinical use of dexamethasone to prevent pain flare continues to be debated among clinicians. Given this controversy, two sides of the debate are presented. Although consensus has not been achieved, the choice to use dexamethasone in the prophylactic setting to reduce pain flare incidence should be a shared decision between the oncologist and patient. Factors including symptom burden, comorbidities, performance status, quality of life and radiation dose and fractionation should be taken into account on an individualized level.

Bone metastases cause pain, suffering and impaired quality of life (QoL). Palliative radiotherapy (RT) and/or chemotherapy are effective methods in controlling pain, reducing analgesics use and improving QoL. This study goal was to investigate the changes in QoL scores among patients who responded to palliative treatment.A prospective study evaluating the role of radiation therapy in a public academic hospital in São Paulo-Brazil recorded patients' opioid use, pain score, Portuguese version of QLQ-BM22 and QLQ-C30 before and 2 months after radiotherapy. Analgesic use and pain score were used to calculate international pain response category. Overall response was defined as the sum of complete response (CR) and partial response (PR). CR was defined as pain score of 0 with no increase in analgesic intake whereas PR was defined as pain reduction ≥2 without analgesic increase or analgesic reduction in ≥25% without increase in pain at the treated site.From September 2014 to October 2015, 25 patients with bone metastases responded to RT or chemotherapy (1 CR, 24 PR). There were 8 male and 17 female patients. The median age of the 25 patients was 59 (range, 22 to 80) years old. Patient's primary cancer site was breast [11], prostate [5], lung [2], others [7]. For QLQ-BM 22, the mean scores of 4 categories at baseline were: pain site (PS) 39, pain characteristics (PC) 61, function interference (FI) 49 and psycho-social aspects (PA) 57. At 2 month follow up, the scores were PS 27, PC 37, FI 70 and PA 59. Statistical significant improvement (P0.05) was seen in PS, PC, FI but not PA. In the QLQ-C30, the scores were not statistically different for all categories, except for pain that demonstrated a 33 point decrease in the median pain score domain (66 to 33).Responders to RT at 2 months presented improvement in BM22 and C30 pain domains, and also improvement in functional interference domain of the BM22 questionnaire.

Background: In recent years, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has become increasingly used for the management of non-spine bone metastases. Few studies have examined the radiological changes in bone metastases after treatment with SBRT and there is no consensus about what constitutes radiologic response to therapy. This article describes various changes on CT after SBRT to non-spine bone metastases in eight selected cases. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted for patients treated with SBRT to non-spine bone metastases between November 2011 and April 2014 at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. A musculoskeletal radiologist identified eight illustrative cases of interest and provided a description of the findings. Results: Different radiological changes following SBRT were described, including: remineralization of lytic bone metastases, demineralization of sclerotic bone metastases, pathologic fracture, size progression and response in different lesions, as well as lung fibrosis after SBRT to a rib metastasis. Conclusions: We reviewed the radiological images of eight selected cases after SBRT to nonspine bone metastases and a number of characteristic findings were highlighted. We recommend future studies to correlate radiologic changes with clinical outcomes including pain relief, toxicity and long-term local control.

Background: Optimal management for limited, non-resectable brain metastases is an evolving area in radiation oncology. Previous data show no difference in survival between stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and SRS plus whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT). Neurocognitive toxicities, treatment duration and tumor recurrence differ and therefore patient values play an important role in decision making. We aim to elicit patient preferences and understand factors important in deciding which treatment to pursue. Methods: Patients were recruited from 2 centers in North America. Eligibility criteria included ≤4 intracranial lesions and physician judgment that either treatment was appropriate. Those with prior treatment for brain metastases were excluded. A decision board presented the treatments and summarized evidence regarding disease control and toxicity. An option to either take an active or passive role was offered. If taking a passive role, treatment was left to the clinician. If an active role was taken, patients made a decision about whether to receive SRS alone, or in combination with WBRT. A debriefing questionnaire to rank important factors in decision making was then completed. Descriptive statistics summarized findings. Results: A total of 23 patients were enrolled. The majority of patients were male (15/23; 65.2%), had primary lung cancer (15/23; 65.2%) and the mean age was 65.5 years. All patients took an active role in deciding their treatment. The majority of patients (21/23) chose to receive SRS alone. The highest ranked factors were quality of life (9.4/10), ability to maintain functional independence (9.3/10) and influence of treatment on survival (9.2/10). The least important factor was number of trips required to the cancer center (5.0/10). Conclusions: A patient centered approach to decision making in brain metastases is feasible. Most patients will take an active role in management if relevant information is presented in a clear, understandable manner. When informed, most patients prefer SRS alone rather than SRS + WBRT and identify quality of life, ability to maintain functional independence and influence of treatment on survival as highly important factors in making their decision.

Background: The aim of this article was to systematically review the efficacy and safety of various antiemetics in prophylaxis of radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV). Methods: A literature search of Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of prophylaxis for RINV in patients receiving radiotherapy to abdomen/pelvis, including total body irradiation (TBI). Primary endpoints were complete control of nausea and complete control of vomiting during acute and delayed phases. Secondary endpoints included use of rescue medication, quality of life (QoL) and incidence of adverse events. Results: Seventeen RCTs were identified. Among patients receiving radiotherapy to abdomen/pelvis, our meta-analysis showed that prophylaxis with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5HT3 RA) was significantly more efficacious than placebo and dopamine receptor antagonists in both complete control of vomiting [OR 0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.33–0.72 and OR 0.17; 95% CI: 0.05–0.58 respectively] and complete control of nausea (OR 0.43; 95% CI: 0.26–0.70 and OR 0.46; 95% CI: 0.24–0.88 respectively). 5HT3 RAs were also more efficacious than rescue therapy and dopamine receptor antagonists plus dexamethasone. The addition of dexamethasone to 5HT3 RA compared to 5HT3 RA alone provides a modest improvement in prophylaxis of RINV. Among patients receiving TBI, 5HT3 RA was more effective than other agents (placebo, combination of metoclopramide, dexamethasone and lorazepam). Conclusions: 5HT3 RAs are more effective than other antiemetics for prophylaxis of RINV in patients receiving radiotherapy to abdomen/pelvis and TBI. Future RCTs should investigate the efficacy of newer agents such as substance P neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists in addition to 5HT3 RAs in prophylaxis of RINV during both acute and delayed phases.

Radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) is a toxicity that can occur in 40-80% of individuals who receive radiation treatment. Current guidelines recommend 5-hydroxytryptamine3 receptor antagonists (5-HT3 RAs) for prophylaxis of RINV for moderate and highly emetogenic radiotherapy; however, certain patients may suffer from RINV despite prophylaxis.This report details the case of a 47-year-old female with extensive bony involvement to the spine from breast cancer presenting with lower back pain.To palliate her symptoms, the patient underwent a course of irradiation to the lumbar spine and was prescribed ondansetron as an antiemetic. However, the patient experienced severe nausea and emesis and was subsequently switched to granisetron and aprepitant.The patient completed the remainder of the radiation treatment with no further emesis and minimal nausea, representing the first documented success of granisetron and aprepitant for RINV after failure on ondansetron.In chemotherapy, switching 5-HT3 RAs after failure on the first is successful in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), yet this has not been previously reported in radiation. In this patient, granisetron and aprepitant were successful in substantially reducing nausea and preventing further emesis, and may represent an alternative antiemetic regimen for RINV prophylaxis and salvage.