Whole brain radiation therapy with or without stereotactic radiosurgery boost for patients with one to three brain metastases: phase III results of the RTOG 9508 randomised trial

University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, United States
The Lancet (Impact Factor: 39.21). 06/2004; 363(9422):1665-72. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16250-8
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Brain metastases occur in up to 40% of all patients with systemic cancer. We aimed to assess whether stereotactic radiosurgery provided any therapeutic benefit in a randomised multi-institutional trial directed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG).
Patients with one to three newly diagnosed brain metastases were randomly allocated either whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) or WBRT followed by stereotactic radiosurgery boost. Patients were stratified by number of metastases and status of extracranial disease. Primary outcome was survival; secondary outcomes were tumour response and local rates, overall intracranial recurrence rates, cause of death, and performance measurements.
From January, 1996, to June, 2001, we enrolled 333 patients from 55 participating RTOG institutions--167 were assigned WBRT and stereotactic radiosurgery and 164 were allocated WBRT alone. Univariate analysis showed that there was a survival advantage in the WBRT and stereotactic radiosurgery group for patients with a single brain metastasis (median survival time 6.5 vs 4.9 months, p=0.0393). Patients in the stereotactic surgery group were more likely to have a stable or improved Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) score at 6 months' follow-up than were patients allocated WBRT alone (43% vs 27%, respectively; p=0.03). By multivariate analysis, survival improved in patients with an RPA class 1 (p<0.0001) or a favourable histological status (p=0.0121).
WBRT and stereotactic boost treatment improved functional autonomy (KPS) for all patients and survival for patients with a single unresectable brain metastasis. WBRT and stereotactic radiosurgery should, therefore, be standard treatment for patients with a single unresectable brain metastasis and considered for patients with two or three brain metastases.


Available from: Minesh P Mehta, Mar 02, 2015
1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patients with brain metastases represent a heterogeneous group where selection of the most appropriate treatment depends on many patient- and disease-related factors. Eventually, a considerable proportion of patients are treated with palliative approaches such as whole-brain radiotherapy. Whole-brain radiotherapy in combination with chemotherapy has recently gained increasing attention and is hoped to augment the palliative effect of whole-brain radiotherapy alone and to extend survival in certain subsets of patients with controlled extracranial disease and good performance status. The randomized trials of whole-brain radiotherapy vs. whole-brain radiotherapy plus chemotherapy suggest that this concept deserves further study, although they failed to improve survival. However, survival might not be the most relevant endpoint in a condition, where most patients die from extracranial progression. Sometimes, the question arises whether patients with newly detected brain metastases and the indication for systemic treatment of extracranial disease can undergo standard systemic chemotherapy with the option of deferred rather than immediate radiotherapy to the brain. The literature contains numerous small reports on this issue, mainly in malignant melanoma, breast cancer, lung cancer and ovarian cancer, but very few sufficiently powered randomized trials. With chemotherapy alone, response rates were mostly in the order of 20-40%. The choice of chemotherapy regimen is often complicated by previous systemic treatment and takes into account the activity of the drugs in extracranial metastatic disease. Because the blood-brain barrier is partially disrupted in most macroscopic metastases, systemically administered agents can gain access to such tumor sites. Our systematic literature review suggests that both chemotherapy and radiochemotherapy for newly diagnosed brain metastases need further critical evaluation before standard clinical implementation. A potential chemotherapy indication might exist as palliative option for patients who have progressive disease after radiotherapy.
    Radiation Oncology 02/2006; 1:19. DOI:10.1186/1748-717X-1-19 · 2.36 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate international patterns of practice for the management of metastatic disease to the brain. An online international practice survey was conducted from April to June 2010. Most of the survey questions were based on common management issues for which optimal management using level 1 evidence was lacking. The survey consisted of three sections: respondent demographics, 13 general questions regarding surgery, whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) and radiosurgery and 13 questions related to specific scenarios. In total, 445 individuals responded to the survey over a 3 month period. Ninety per cent of respondents worked in a hospital-based setting. Ninety-three per cent of respondents were radiation oncologists. Thirty-seven per cent worked in an academic setting. Only three of 26 survey questions generated at least 70% agreement for a favoured response. Eighty-eight per cent of respondents chose comfort measures only for patients with multiple brain metastases who have been previously treated with WBRT and who now present 6 months later with two to four brain metastases (all less than 4 cm in size) with uncontrolled extracranial disease and bedridden state. Seventy-eight per cent of respondents would use WBRT alone for initial treatment in patients with two to four brain metastases (all less than 4 cm in size), with active, uncontrolled extracranial disease and a Karnofsky performance status of 70. Seventy-eight per cent of respondents chose surgical resection for an enlarging single brain metastasis that has been previously treated with radiosurgery. The enlarging single brain metastasis is in a surgically accessible site and is now symptomatic. The patient has controlled extracranial disease, good performance status and magnetic resonance spectroscopy was not diagnostic. There is a lack of uniform agreement for many common management issues (not well answered by level 1 evidence) in patients with metastatic disease to the brain.
    Clinical Oncology 08/2012; 24(6):e81-92. DOI:10.1016/j.clon.2012.03.008 · 2.83 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE To critically assess the use of stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) for the treatment of primary renal cell carcinoma with particular focus on local control and toxicity outcomes. METHODS A systematic search on PubMed was performed in January 2012 independently by two radiation oncologists using structured search terms. Secondary manual searches were performed on citations in relevant publications and abstracts in major radiotherapy journals. Outcomes, techniques, biological doses and scientific rigour of the studies were analysed. RESULTS In total 10 publications (seven retrospective and three prospective) were identified. A wide range of techniques, doses and dose fractionation schedules were found. A total of 126 patients were treated with between one and six fractions of SABR. Median or mean follow-up ranged from 9 to 57.5 months. A weighted local control was reported of 93.91% (range 84%-100%). The weighted rate of severe grade 3 or higher adverse events was 3.8% (range 0%-19%). The weighted rate of grade 1-2 minor adverse events was 21.4% (range 0%-93%). The most commonly employed fractionation schedule was 40 Gy delivered over five fractions. CONCLUSIONS Current literature suggests that SABR for primary renal cell carcinoma can be delivered with promising rates of local control and acceptable toxicity. However, there was insufficient evidence to recommend a consensus view for dose fractionation or technique. This indicates the need for further prospective studies assessing the role of this technique in medically inoperable patients.
    BJU International 10/2012; 110(11B). DOI:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11550.x · 3.13 Impact Factor