Stereotactic Body and Conventional Radiotherapy for Painful Bone Metastases

Bas J. J. Bindels,Carole Mercier,Roxanne Gal,Jorrit-Jan Verlaan,Joost J. C. Verhoeff,Piet Dirix,Piet Ost,Nicolien Kasperts,Yvette M. van der Linden,Helena M. Verkooijen,Joanne M. van der Velden

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.55409

2024-02-13

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:This systematic review and meta-analysis assesses the comparative effectiveness associated with stereotactic body radiotherapy vs conventional external beam radiotherapy for relief of metastatic bone pain.

medicine, general & internal

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

### What problem does this paper attempt to solve?

This paper aims to compare the effectiveness of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and conventional external - beam radiotherapy (cEBRT) in relieving pain from bone metastases. Specifically, the researchers hope to evaluate the differences in overall pain response and complete pain response between the two radiotherapy methods at different time points (1 month, 3 months, and 6 months) through a systematic review and meta - analysis.

### Research background

Bone metastases are a common complication of cancer and can cause severe pain, which seriously affects the quality of life of patients. Conventional external - beam radiotherapy (cEBRT) and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) are commonly used methods for treating pain from bone metastases. SBRT can improve the treatment effect while reducing the impact on surrounding normal tissues through high - dose and precise radiotherapy. However, the current research results are controversial regarding whether SBRT is more effective than cEBRT.

### Research objectives

1. **Compare overall pain response**: Evaluate whether there are significant differences in the overall pain response between SBRT and cEBRT at different time points (1 month, 3 months, and 6 months).
2. **Compare complete pain response**: Evaluate whether there are significant differences in the complete pain response between SBRT and cEBRT at different time points (1 month, 3 months, and 6 months).
3. **Integrate existing evidence**: Through systematic review and meta - analysis, integrate the results of existing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and other comparative studies to provide more comprehensive evidence support.

### Main findings

- **Overall pain response**: In the intention - to - treat (ITT) analysis, there were no significant differences in the overall pain response rates between SBRT and cEBRT at 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months.
- **Complete pain response**: In the intention - to - treat (ITT) analysis, the complete pain response rates of SBRT at 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months were significantly higher than those of cEBRT.
- **Quality of life**: Most studies have found that SBRT and cEBRT have similar effects in improving or maintaining the quality of life of patients.
- **Toxic side effects and pathological fractures**: Most studies have not found significant differences in the incidence of toxic side effects and pathological fractures between SBRT and cEBRT.
- **Overall survival**: Most studies have not found significant differences in overall survival between SBRT and cEBRT.

### Conclusion

This systematic review and meta - analysis show that for patients with pain from bone metastases, there are no significant differences between SBRT and cEBRT in overall pain response, but in terms of complete pain response, SBRT performs better. Therefore, although it is not recommended to use SBRT as a routine treatment option for all patients with pain from bone metastases, certain specific subgroups may benefit more from SBRT.