Review of patterns of practice and patients' preferences in the treatment of bone metastases with palliative radiotherapy

被引:49
|
作者
Bradley, Nicole M. E.
Husted, Janice
Sey, Michael Sai Lai
Husain, Amna E.
Sinclair, Emily
Harris, Kristin
Chow, Edward
机构
[1] Univ Waterloo, Fac Appl Hlth Sci, Dept Hlth Studies & Gerontol, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada
[2] Toronto Sunnybrook Reg Canc Ctr, Rapid Response Radiotherapy Program, Toronto, ON, Canada
[3] Univ Toronto, Fac Med, Toronto, ON, Canada
[4] Univ Toronto, Mt Sinai Hosp, Temmy Latner Ctr Palliat Care, Toronto, ON M5G 1X5, Canada
关键词
bone metastases; palliative radiotherapy; fractionation; radiotherapy practice; patient preferences; RANDOMIZED-TRIAL; SINGLE-FRACTION; MULTIFRACTION RADIOTHERAPY; TREATMENT STRATEGIES; RADIATION-THERAPY; BREAST-CANCER; PAIN; ONCOLOGISTS; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1007/s00520-006-0161-3
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Introduction: Since the 1980s, randomized clinical trials showed that single fraction radiotherapy (RT) provided equal pain relief as multiple fractions of RT in the treatment of bone metastases. Materials and methods: Using Medline, a literature search was conducted on patterns of practice among radiation oncologists and patients' preferences of dose fractionations for the treatment of bone metastases. Results and discussion: Fifteen studies on international patterns of practice published between 1966 and May 2006 were identified. Surveys of Canadian radiation oncologists indicated approximately 85% preferred multiple fractions, most often as 20 Gray in five fractions (20 Gy/5). Surveys in the United States indicated that 30 Gy/10 was most commonly used, and 90-100% of these oncologists preferred multiple over single fraction RT. Multiple fractions were most commonly used in the United Kingdom, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand, and India; however, more radiation oncologists in these countries would prescribe a single fraction than in North America. Three studies investigated patients' preferences of dose fractionations. In the Australian study, most patients favored single fraction RT as long as long-term outcomes were not compromised. Durability of pain relief was considered more important than short-term convenience factors. In the Singapore study, 85% of patients would choose extended courses of RT (24 Gy/6) compared to a single 8 Gy. In the Canadian study, most patients (76%) would choose a single 8 Gy over 20 Gy/5 of palliative RT due to greater convenience. Conclusion: Despite strong evidence supporting the use of single fraction RT, current practices and preferences favor multiple fractions for the treatment of bone metastases. This has significant implications for the overall quality of life, RT department workload, costs to healthcare systems, and patient convenience.
引用
收藏
页码:373 / 385
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Prognostic Factors Influencing Survival and a Treatment Pattern Analysis of Conventional Palliative Radiotherapy for Patients with Bone Metastases
    Ignat, Patricia
    Todor, Nicolae
    Ignat, Radu-Mihai
    Suteu, Ofelia
    CURRENT ONCOLOGY, 2021, 28 (05) : 3876 - 3890
  • [22] A review of recently published radiotherapy treatment guidelines for bone metastases: Contrasts or convergence?
    Lutz, Stephen
    Chow, Edward
    JOURNAL OF BONE ONCOLOGY, 2012, 1 (01): : 18 - 23
  • [23] A survey of patterns of practice on palliative radiation therapy for bone metastasis in Korea
    Chung, Yoonsun
    Koom, Woong Sub
    Ahn, Yong Chan
    Park, Hee-Chul
    Kim, Hak Jae
    Yoon, Sang Min
    Shin, Sangjin
    Lee, Yoon Jae
    JOURNAL OF CANCER RESEARCH AND CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2013, 139 (12) : 2089 - 2096
  • [24] PATTERNS OF PRACTICE IN PALLIATIVE RADIOTHERAPY FOR PAINFUL BONE METASTASES: IMPACT OF A REGIONAL RAPID ACCESS CLINIC ON ACCESS TO CARE
    Wu, Jackson S. Y.
    Kerba, Marc
    Wong, Rebecca K. S.
    Mckimmon, Erin
    Eigl, Bernhard
    Hagen, Neil A.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2010, 78 (02): : 533 - 538
  • [25] Incidence and radiotherapy treatment patterns of complicated bone metastases
    Peters, Cedric
    Vandewiele, Julie
    Lievens, Yolande
    van Eijkeren, Marc
    Boterberg, Tom
    Deseyne, Pieter
    Veldeman, Liv
    De Neve, Wilfried
    Monten, Chris
    Braems, Sabine
    Vandecasteele, Katrien
    Ost, Piet
    JOURNAL OF BONE ONCOLOGY, 2024, 44
  • [26] Optimal dose-fractionation schedule of palliative radiotherapy for patients with bone metastases: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis
    Tang, Xiaofang
    Hu, Qiancheng
    Chen, Ye
    Wang, Xin
    Li, Xiaofen
    Cheng, Ke
    Cao, Dan
    BMJ OPEN, 2020, 10 (01):
  • [27] Evaluation of quality of life outcomes following palliative radiotherapy in bone metastases: A literature review
    Koufopoulou, Christina
    Mosa, Eftychia
    Charalampakis, Nikolaos
    Nikolaou, Michail
    Tsoukalas, Nikolaos
    Nixon, Ioanna
    Saraireh, Haytham Hamed
    Hajiioannou, Jiannis
    Kardamakis, Dimitrios
    Kyrgias, George
    Tolia, Maria
    JOURNAL OF BUON, 2019, 24 (05): : 1747 - 1760
  • [28] DEGRO Practice Guidelines for Palliative Radiotherapy of Metastatic Breast Cancer Bone Metastases and Metastatic Spinal Cord Compression (MSCC)
    Souchon, Rainer
    Wenz, Frederik
    Sedlmayer, Felix
    Budach, Wilfried
    Dunst, Juergen
    Feyer, Petra
    Haase, Wulf
    Harms, Wolfgang
    Sautter-Bihl, Marie-Luise
    Sauer, Rolf
    STRAHLENTHERAPIE UND ONKOLOGIE, 2009, 185 (07) : 417 - 424
  • [29] Palliative radiation for bone metastases from hepatocellular carcinoma: practice patterns and the amount of remaining life spent receiving treatment
    Schmid, Ryan K.
    Johnstone, Candice A.
    Robbins, Jared R.
    ANNALS OF PALLIATIVE MEDICINE, 2022, 11 (06) : 1900 - 1910
  • [30] Fatigue scores in patients receiving palliative radiotherapy for painful bone metastases
    Paul M. Cheon
    Natalie Pulenzas
    Liying Zhang
    Emma Mauti
    Erin Wong
    Nemica Thavarajah
    May Tsao
    Cyril Danjoux
    Lori Holden
    Carlo DeAngelis
    Edward Chow
    Supportive Care in Cancer, 2015, 23 : 2097 - 2103