Trial reportNeuro-oncology2026
Radiation therapy alone versus radiation therapy plus radiofrequency ablation/vertebral augmentation for painful spine metastasis: A phase 2 randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Neuro-oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04375891 (Randomized Phase II Study of Radiation Therapy Alone Versus Radiation Therapy Plus Radiofrequency Ablation), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Randomized Phase II Study of Radiation Therapy Alone Versus Radiation Therapy Plus Radiofrequency Ablation (RFA)/Vertebral Augmentation for Localized Spine Metastasis
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Effectiveness of Kyphoplasty and Radiation with or Without Radiofrequency Ablation in Spinal Metastases from Lung Cancer.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evolving Treatment Paradigms of Meningiomas; a Precision Medicine Perspective.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRadiation therapy (RT) offers pain relief for patients with symptomatic spine metastases. This study compares pain response and quality of life (QOL) between conventional RT or RT and radiofrequency ablation/percutaneous vertebral augmentation (RFA/PVA).
methodsThis single-center, prospective, randomized phase 2 trial (NCT04375891) enrolled patients with spine metastasis (T5-L5, with 1-2 index sites amenable to RFA) and a minimum Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) of 5. After stratifying by tumor type (radioresistant vs. radiosensitive), patients were randomized (1:2) to RT or RT+RFA/PVA. The primary endpoint was 3-month pain response. Secondary endpoints included rapidity and duration of pain response, adverse events, and QOL measures.
resultsThe study terminated after enrolling and randomizing 63 patients (79% of planned accrual; 21 RT alone, 42 RT+RFA/PVA). The median baseline NPRS was 10 (interquartile range [IQR] 8-10) for RT and 9 (7.5-10) for RT+RFA/PVA. The primary endpoint of pain control 3 months after treatment was similar between the RT and RT+RFA/PVA arms (50% vs. 48%, P = .92). Complete pain response rates at 3 months were also similar in the RT and RT+RFA/PVA arms (17% vs. 21%, P = .77). The 3-month median NPRS reduction was -4 (IQR, -6 to -1) in both the RT and the RT+RFA/PVA arms. Secondary efficacy endpoints and toxicity rates were comparable. Overall QOL measures including FACT-G, BPI, and EQ-5D scores were also similar between the two treatment arms.
conclusionsThe addition of RFA/PVA to conventional RT for patients with symptomatic spine metastases did not improve pain control or QOL measures at 3 months.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.