Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42860462›Full record

SynthesisClinical & experimental metastasis2026

Stereotactic body radiotherapy versus conventional external beam radiotherapy for bone metastases: a meta-analysis.

Marc Boutros, Jean-Pierre Saad, Guy Awad, Kamal Bou Hamdan, William Eward

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical & experimental metastasis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Marc BoutrosFaculty of Medicine, Saint Joseph University, Beirut, Lebanon. marceboutros@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1765-4222
Jean-Pierre SaadFaculty of Medicine, Saint Joseph University, Beirut, Lebanon.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-0353-1012
Guy AwadFaculty of Medicine, Saint Joseph University, Beirut, Lebanon.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-9902-7878
Kamal Bou HamdanFaculty of Medicine, Saint Joseph University, Beirut, Lebanon.
William EwardDuke University, Durham, NC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and conventional external beam radiotherapy (cEBRT) are widely used treatment options for the management of painful bone metastases. Randomized phase III trials have provided direct comparative evidence for SBRT and cEBRT; however, their results vary according to treatment regimen and clinical endpoint, supporting a broader quantitative synthesis of pain response, local control, retreatment, and safety outcomes. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar from database inception through January 2026. Comparative clinical studies evaluating SBRT versus cEBRT for bone metastases were included. Outcomes assessed encompassed pain-related measures (change in Visual Analog Scale scores at 3 and 6 months; complete, partial, stable, and progressive pain response), opioid consumption at 3 and 6 months, radiologic local progression or treatment failure at 8 months, re-irradiation at 12 months, skeletal-related events (vertebral and non-vertebral compression fractures), spinal cord compression, treatment-related toxicity, and overall survival at 1 year. Pooled analyses were performed using random-effects models. Early pain reduction at 3 months, partial and stable pain response, and opioid consumption at 3 and 6 months were comparable between SBRT and cEBRT (all p > 0.05). However, SBRT demonstrated superior mid-term outcomes, with a significantly higher complete pain response at 6 months (RR = 1.43; p = 0.001) and a significantly lower rate of progressive pain response at 6 months (RR = 0.61; p = 0.03). SBRT was also associated with markedly improved local disease control, reflected by lower rates of radiologic local progression or treatment failure at 8 months (RR = 0.36; p < 0.001) and a substantially reduced need for re-irradiation at 12 months (RR = 0.13; p < 0.001). Rates of vertebral and non-vertebral compression fractures, spinal cord compression, treatment-related toxicity, and overall survival at 1 year did not differ significantly between treatment modalities. This meta-analysis demonstrates that both SBRT and cEBRT are safe and effective treatment options for patients with painful bone metastases. While early pain palliation and safety outcomes are comparable, SBRT provides superior durability of pain control, reduced pain progression, improved local tumor control, and a markedly lower need for re-irradiation. SBRT may be particularly advantageous for patients with longer expected survival, oligometastatic disease, or lesions at higher risk of progression, whereas cEBRT remains an effective and accessible option for rapid symptom palliation in patients with limited prognosis.

Indexed as

Bone NeoplasmsCancer PainRadiosurgeryHumansBone metastasesConventional external beam radiotherapyLocal controlMeta-analysisPain responseRe-irradiationStereotactic body radiotherapy

Identifiers

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.