Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37058207›Full record

ArticleClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2023

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for spinal metastases: 12 years of a single center experience.

Raquel Ciérvide, Ovidio Hernando, Mercedes López, Ángel Montero, Daniel Zucca, Emilio Sánchez, Beatriz Álvarez, Mariola García-Aranda, Xin Chen Zhao, Jeannette Valero and 9 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Raquel CiérvideDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain. raquel.ciervide@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0130-878X
Ovidio HernandoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain.
Mercedes LópezDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain.
Ángel MonteroDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain.
Daniel ZuccaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain.
Emilio SánchezDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain.
Beatriz ÁlvarezDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain.
Mariola García-ArandaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain.
Xin Chen ZhaoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain.
Jeannette ValeroDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain.
Rosa AlonsoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain.
Jaime MartíDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain.
Miguel Ángel de la CasaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain.
Leire AlonsoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain.
Juan GarcíaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain.
Paz Garcia de AciluDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain.
Alejandro PradoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain.
Pedro Fernandez LetonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain.
Carmen RubioDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain.
HM Hospitales · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the clinical outcomes of patients with spine metastases treated with SBRT at our institution. MATERIALS AND

methodsPatients with spine metastases treated with SBRT (1 fraction/18 Gy or 5 fractions/7 Gy) during the last 12 years have been analyzed. All patients were simulated supine in a vacuum cushion or with a shoulder mask. CT scans and MRI image registration were performed. Contouring was based on International Spine-Radiosurgery-Consortium-Consensus-Guidelines. Highly conformal-techniques (IMRT/VMAT) were used for treatment planning. Intra and interfraction (CBCT or X-Ray-ExacTrac) verification were mandatory.

resultsFrom February 2010 to January 2022, 129 patients with spinal metastases were treated with SBRT [1 fraction/18 Gy (75%) or 5 fractions/7 Gy] (25%). For patients with painful metastases (74/129:57%), 100% experienced an improvement in pain after SBRT. With a median follow-up of 14.2 months (average 22.9; range 0.5-140) 6 patients (4.6%) experienced local relapse. Local progression-free survival was different, considering metastases's location (p < 0.04). The 1, 2 and 3 years overall survival (OS) were 91.2%, 85.1% and 83.2%, respectively. Overall survival was significantly better for patients with spine metastases of breast and prostate cancers compared to other tumors (p < 0.05) and significantly worse when visceral metastases were present (p < 0.05), when patients were metastatic de novo (p < 0.05), and in those patients receiving single fraction SBRT (p: 0.01).

conclusionsAccording to our experience, SBRT for patients with spinal metastases was effective in terms of local control and useful to reach pain relief. Regarding the intent of the treatment, an adequate selection of patients is essential to propose this ablative approach.

Indexed as

RadiosurgerySpinal NeoplasmsBreastHumansMaleNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPainRetrospective StudiesAblativeOligometastasesSBRTSpine metastases

Identifiers

PMID37058207
OpenAlexW4365482884

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.