Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Anticancer Research
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart
Anticancer Research

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Research ArticleClinical Studies

Quality of Life and Radiation-induced Late Toxicity Following Intensity-modulated Versus Three-dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy for Patients with Spinal Bone Metastases: Results of a Randomized Trial

TANJA SPRAVE, VIVEK VERMA, ROBERT FÖRSTER, INGMAR SCHLAMPP, KATHARINA HEES, THOMAS BRUCKNER, TILMAN BOSTEL, RAMI EL SHAFIE, NILS HENRIK NICOLAY, JÜRGEN DEBUS and HARALD RIEF
Anticancer Research August 2018, 38 (8) 4953-4960; DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.12813
TANJA SPRAVE
1Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
2Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: tanja.sprave{at}med.uni-heidelberg.de
VIVEK VERMA
3Department of Radiation Oncology, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA, U.S.A.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
ROBERT FÖRSTER
1Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
2Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany
4Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
INGMAR SCHLAMPP
1Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
2Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
KATHARINA HEES
5Department of Medical Biometry, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
6Department of Statistics, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
THOMAS BRUCKNER
5Department of Medical Biometry, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
TILMAN BOSTEL
1Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
RAMI EL SHAFIE
1Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
NILS HENRIK NICOLAY
1Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
2Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany
7Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
JÜRGEN DEBUS
1Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
2Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
HARALD RIEF
1Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
2Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background/Aim: Quality of life (QOL) is becoming increasingly important to appraise the value of a particular oncologic intervention. This was a prespecified secondary analysis of a randomized trial (NCT02832830) of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) versus conventional three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) as part of palliative management of symptomatic spinal metastases. This study examined QOL, fatigue, emotional distress, and late toxicities between patients having received IMRT versus 3DCRT. Materials and Methods: Sixty patients were enrolled in this single-institutional randomized exploratory trial in which all patients received 30 Gy in 10 fractions. The EORTC QLQ-BM22, EORTC QLQ-FA13, and QSC-R10 questionnaires were utilized to evaluate QOL, fatigue, and emotional distress, respectively; endpoints were evaluated at baseline, and at 3, and 6 months. Late (6 months) toxicities were assessed according to the LENT-SOMA criteria. Results: Mean follow-up was 192 days (IQR=77-285). Although QOL was similar between groups, patients in the IMRT arm experienced lower physical (p=0.011) and emotional (p=0.017) fatigue at 6 months. Emotional distress was also lower in IMRT-treated patients after six months (p=0.039). Cohen's effect size confirmed the clinically significant improvement of these findings. Late toxicities occurred infrequently and were similar between arms. Conclusion: This is the first randomized study evaluating QOL between IMRT and 3DCRT to palliate vertebral metastases. IMRT resulted in reduced physical and emotional fatigue as well as emotional distress. IMRT should be further studied for these patients given these outcomes.

  • Spinal metastases
  • quality of life
  • intensity-modulated radiotherapy
  • palliative radiotherapy
  • toxicity

Spinal metastases occur in up to 40% of advanced-stage cancer patients and can be a major cause of quality of life (QOL) and symptomatic deterioration (1). These include pain, immobility, neurological deficits, and pathological fractures; additionally, fatigue (associated with disease and therapy) occurs in over two-thirds of patients and has a major QOL impact (2-4).

Historically, three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) has been the technique of choice for palliation (5, 6). However, advanced technologies such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), often implemented with image guidance, are more conformal and result in lower doses to nearby organs-at-risk (OARs). A number of studies have demonstrated the advantages of IMRT in both curative and palliative settings for various cancers (7-11). A prospective non-randomized study of patients with head and neck cancer found improved QOL in IMRT patients compared to patients treated with 3DCRT (12). However, the impact of multi-fraction IMRT on QOL in patients with spine metastases has not been investigated in prospective randomized studies to date. This is important to perform, as QOL is becoming increasingly important to appraise the value of a particular intervention (13-15).

This was a prespecified secondary analysis of a randomized trial of IMRT versus conventional 3DCRT as part of palliative management of symptomatic spinal metastases. This study examined QOL, fatigue, emotional distress, and late toxicity between patients having received IMRT versus 3DCRT.

Materials and Methods

Trial design and participants. The randomized trial, registered on Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02832830), was approved by the Heidelberg University Independent Ethics Committee (Number S-238/2016). Details of the study design have been published previously (16). Briefly, a block randomization approach (block size of 6) was used to ensure that both groups were balanced. The primary endpoint of this randomized, single-institutional, pilot trial was 3-month RT-induced toxicity following delivery of 30 Gy in 10 fractions of image-guided IMRT versus conventional 3DCRT in patients with previously untreated spinal metastases. All patients had an established indication for RT, including pain and/or neurological deficits. The present investigation was a prespecified secondary analysis regarding QOL, emotional distress and late toxicity at 6 months after RT.

Inclusion criteria were ages 18-85, a Karnofsky performance score ≥50 (ECOG ≤2), and ability to provide written informed consent. Exclusion criteria were significant neurological or psychiatric disorders precluding informed consent, receipt of prior RT to the same site, or radiosensitive (multiple myeloma or lymphoma) histologies. Number or location of metastases were not specific inclusion or exclusion criteria, nor was the presence of spinal cord compression.

Assessment of endpoints. Per protocol, QOL, fatigue, and emotional distress were assessed at baseline and at 3 and 6 months after RT. These comprised of the documentation of patient-specific data and the following questionnaires: EORTC QLQ-BM22, EORTC QLQ-FA13, and QSC-R10.

The QOL endpoint was quantified using the well-validated EORTC QLQ BM22 questionnaire, which is specifically designed for patients with bone metastases. This questionnaire (range=0-100) comprises 22 items and four scales for the measurement of pain in various body areas (painful sites), pain characteristics (persistent pain, recurrent pain), functional impairment (pain when performing various activities, interference with everyday activities), and psychosocial aspects (family, worries, hope) (17, 18).

Fatigue was assessed using the EORTC QLQ FA13 (range=0-100) questionnaire. This includes 13 items and five scales for measuring cancer-related fatigue (19), with subscales covering physical, emotional, and cognitive fatigue, along with interference with daily life, and social sequelae.

Emotional distress was evaluated using the QSC-R10 (range=0-50) questionnaire (20). This module is a valid and reliable questionnaire for determining emotional distress and anxiety in cancer patients (21). The questionnaires were filled out by the patients at the study site.

Lastly, late side-effects were captured according to the Late Effects of Normal Tissue – Subjective, Objective, Management and Analytic (LENT-SOMA) criteria.

Radiotherapy. CT simulation was performed with custom immobilization using Aquaplast® (Aquaplast Corporation, Wyckoff, NJ, USA) head masks for cervical spine cases and Wingstep/ Prostep® (Elekta, Stockholm, Sweden) devices for thoracolumbar cases. In addition to OARs (dose constraints for which were per QUANTEC recommendations), the clinical target volume (CTV) was delineated on the planning CT and encompassed the affected vertebral body or the whole sacrum for sacral lesions (22). The planning target volume (PTV) was an isotropic 1 cm expansion of the CTV and was to be covered by the 90% isodose line. The prescription dose for both cohorts was 30 Gy in 10 fractions.

The IMRT group received image-guided (mega- or kilo-voltage cone beam computed tomography) RT by means of step-and-shoot IMRT, VMAT (Elekta Versa HD accelerator), or helical TomoTherapy (Accuray Inc., Madison, WI, USA). The 3DCRT cohort was most commonly delivered with two or three anteroposterior 6 MV individually-formed beams. Position verification was applied by weekly kilo-voltage CT and before each fraction by comparing orthogonal portal images with digitally reconstructed radiographs from the planning CT.

Statistical analyses. On account of the explorative character of this study it was not possible to estimate the total number of cases; however, with 30 patients per group, it was possible to detect a standardized effect (Cohen's d) of about 0.8 with 80% power and a significance level (α) of 5%.

All variables were analyzed descriptively by tabulation of the measures of the empirical distributions. According to the scale level of the variables, means, standard deviations, medians, as well as minimum and maximum (or absolute and relative frequencies) were reported. Additionally, for variables with longitudinal measurements, the time courses of individual patients are summarized by treatment groups. Descriptive p-values of the corresponding statistical tests comparing treatment groups were given. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare differences. Cohen's effect size (ES) was assessed for clinically relevant changes in questionnaire measures (<0.3 low, 0.3-0.7 moderate, >0.7 strong differences).

Finally, we compared the groups regarding overall and bone survival using Kaplan–Meier estimates and log-rank tests. All statistical analyses were performed with SAS software v 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA).

Results

From November 2016 to May 2017, 60 patients were randomized. No patients were excluded post randomization. Baseline characteristics were balanced between the two treatment arms (Table I, as previously published (23).

Although all but one surviving patients completed all assessments, not all patients survived by the three and six-month time periods. Within the first 3 months, 10 patients (33.3%) in the IMRT group had died, along with 11 patients (36.7%) in the 3DCRT arm. Between 3 and 6 months, another 2 patients (10%) died due to tumor progression in the IMRT cohort, along with a further 7 patients (36.8%) in the 3DCRT arm (Figure 1). The mean follow-up was 192 days (IQR 77-285) for both groups.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table I.

Baseline characteristics of randomly assigned participants. Explanation: Others: carcinoma of unknown primary (CUP), gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST), melanoma, mesothelioma, pancreatic cancer, renal cancer.

QOL was evaluated by means of the EORTC QLQ-BM22 module. Therein, there were no significant differences between cohorts in terms of painful sites, pain characteristics, psychosocial aspects or functional impairment (Table II).

Evaluation of fatigue using the EORTC QLQ FA13 module revealed no differences between groups (at either 3 or 6 months) with regard to interference with daily life and social sequelae (Table III). However, after six months, patients in the IMRT arm had significantly lower physical (p=0.011) and emotional fatigue (p=0.017). Cohen's ES confirmed the clinically significant improvement in these parameters (ES 1.08) and (ES 1.03), respectively.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

CONSORT diagram of the trial.

Emotional distress, as measured by the QSC-R10 module was similar at three months, but superior in the IMRT group at six months (p=0.039) (Table IV). Cohen's ES (0.93) confirmed these findings as well.

Additionally, late toxicity profiles at 6 months were examined according to LENT-SOMA criteria. The most frequent side-effects in the IMRT group were grades 1-2 such as dyspnea (n=3, 16.7%) and parasthesia (n=2, 11.1%). In contrast, the most frequent side-effects in the 3DCRT group were grades 1-2 esophagitis, diarrhea, radiculitis, myositis, and myalgia (n=2, 16.7% each) (Table V). In total only one participant (5.6%) in the IMRT arm reported grade 3 radiculopathy. No grade ≥4 adverse events occurred in either group. No significant differences in late toxicity were observed between groups.

Discussion

Maintaining QOL in patients with advanced malignancies is of paramount importance. QOL impairment occurs not only by disease itself, but also by therapeutic interventions and their sequelae. For instance, patients with painful spinal metastases may suffer from not only neoplastic pain, but also from side effects of interventions and analgesics. Radiotherapy can reduce pain and thus reduce analgesic consumption, which can be reflected in increased QOL profiles (24). Thus, choosing optimal therapy modalities and techniques in the palliative situation is crucial (25).

This is the first randomized study to illustrate the effect of IMRT on reducing physical and emotional fatigue as well as emotional distress.

More than half of patients with advanced tumors suffer from moderate fatigue before commencing radiation therapy (24). To this extent, reduction of further treatment-related fatigue is essential. Herein, the substantial improvement in physical (p=0.011) and emotional fatigue (p=0.017) at 6 months is consistent with other data from our group showing similar improvements in physical fatigue after 6 months with training of paravertebral muscles during RT (26). Although it is theoretically possible that higher conformality decreases damage to normal tissues, which in turn would decrease fatigue, there are few prospective data to confirm this statement. However, dose-fractionation regimens have been shown to be more robustly associated with fatigue (27), and the fact that all patients received 30 Gy in 10 fractions would imply that fatigue may be more equivalent between cohorts than numeric/statistical values suggest.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table II.

Effects on QOL (EORTC QLQ-BM 22).

Furthermore, psychosocial distress, depression, and anxiety are particularly prevalent in advanced disease stages (28), with clinical depression and anxiety ranging from 20-39% (29). Oncological patients undergoing radiation therapy are at high risk for these mental health disorders; over half of patients may be on antidepressants or anxiolytics before the start of RT (30). To this extent, it is noteworthy that emotional distress was lower in the IMRT group at six months (p=0.039), which are in concord with results by Rief and colleagues (26).

There were no significant QOL differences between both groups, which are consistent with established data from our group (26). Nevertheless, it is intuitive that, with similar dose-fractionation schemes in both cohorts, the QOL corresponding to painful sites, pain characteristics, and functional interference would be statistically similar. As with several of the aforementioned measures, however, this parameter greatly depends on the precise nature of patient-physician communication as well as a host of several other factors that could confound conclusions in this and any other QOL or patient-reported outcome analysis (31).

Lastly, regarding the equipoise of late toxicities between arms (but with more significant differences in acute events (23) implies that even acute toxicities have lasting and measurable influences on QOL in these patients. These issues must be further probed, which also have implications on the increasing use of stereotactic radiotherapy for vertebral metastases.

Despite the prospective randomized nature of this study with a low drop-out rate, there are several limitations, in addition to those presented above such as the small sample size, diversity in primary disease (and degree of control thereof), and lack of formal power calculations owing to the explorative nature. Moreover, because all patients had advanced cancer, 60% of the IMRT patients and 40% of the 3DCRT group were lost to follow-up from progressive disease and/or death. Finally, as described elsewhere (15), it is imperative to mention that no study evaluating QOL or patient-reported outcomes can account for the innumerable factors that influence these variables, including prior therapy, baseline characteristics, social support, comorbidities, experience at the radiation facility, and nature of follow-up. As a result, further data are highly encouraged to validate the conclusion made herein.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table III.

Effects on fatigue according to EORTC QLQ-FA 13.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table IV.

Effects on emotional distress according to the FBK-R10 questionnaire.

Conclusion

This is the first randomized study evaluating QOL between IMRT and 3DCRT to palliate vertebral metastases. IMRT results in reduced physical and emotional fatigue along with emotional distress. Although IMRT should be further studied for these patients given these outcomes, larger randomized trials are necessary to confirm these findings.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table V.

Toxicity profile at 6 months after radiotherapy in both groups.

Acknowledgements

The sponsors of the study had no role in study design, data analysis, data interpretation and wording of the report. The corresponding author (HR) had full access to the entire data of the study and had the final responsibility regarding the decision to submit for publication.

Footnotes

  • Conflicts of Interest

    The Authors declare that they have no competing interests.

  • Received May 31, 2018.
  • Revision received July 5, 2018.
  • Accepted July 9, 2018.
  • Copyright© 2018, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved

References

  1. ↵
    1. Wong DA,
    2. Fornasier VL,
    3. MacNab I
    : Spinal metastases: the obvious, the occult, and the impostors. Spine 15: 1-4, 1990.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Smets EM,
    2. Garssen B,
    3. Schuster-Uitterhoeve AL,
    4. de Haes JC
    : Fatigue in cancer patients. Brit J Cancer 68: 220-224, 1993.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Curt GA
    : The impact of fatigue on patients with cancer: overview of FATIGUE 1 and 2. The Oncologist 5: 9-12, 2000.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Ahlberg K,
    2. Ekman T,
    3. Gaston-Johansson F,
    4. Mock V
    : Assessment and management of cancer-related fatigue in adults. Lancet 362: 640-650, 2003.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Sze WM,
    2. Shelley M,
    3. Held I,
    4. Mason M
    : Palliation of metastatic bone pain: single fraction versus multifraction radiotherapy – a systematic review of the randomised trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2: CD004721, 2004.
  5. ↵
    1. McQuay HJ,
    2. Collins SL,
    3. Carroll D,
    4. Moore RA
    : Radiotherapy for the palliation of painful bone metastases. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2: Cd001793, 2000.
  6. ↵
    1. Wortel RC,
    2. Incrocci L,
    3. Pos FJ,
    4. Lebesque JV,
    5. Witte MG,
    6. van der Heide UA,
    7. van Herk M,
    8. Heemsbergen WD
    : Acute toxicity after image-guided intensity modulated radiation therapy compared to 3D conformal radiation therapy in prostate cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 91: 737-744, 2015.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Grills IS,
    2. Yan D,
    3. Martinez AA,
    4. Vicini FA,
    5. Wong JW,
    6. Kestin LL
    : Potential for reduced toxicity and dose escalation in the treatment of inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer: a comparison of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), 3D conformal radiation, and elective nodal irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 57: 875-890, 2003.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Sujenthiran A,
    2. Nossiter J,
    3. Charman SC,
    4. Parry M,
    5. Dasgupta P,
    6. van der Meulen J,
    7. Cathcart PJ,
    8. Clarke NW,
    9. Payne H,
    10. Aggarwal A
    : National population-based study comparing treatment-related toxicity in men who received intensity modulated versus 3-dimensional conformal radical radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 99: 1253-1260, 2017.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. van Beek KM,
    2. Kaanders JH,
    3. Janssens GO,
    4. Takes RP,
    5. Span PN,
    6. Verhoef CG
    : Effectiveness and toxicity of hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus 2- and 3-dimensional radiotherapy in incurable head and neck cancer. Head Neck 38: E1264-1270, 2016.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Rief H,
    2. Habermehl D,
    3. Schubert K,
    4. Debus J,
    5. Combs SE
    : Time evaluation of image-guided radiotherapy in patients with spinal bone metastases. A single-center study. Strahlentherapie und Onkologie: Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft [et al] 190: 287-292, 2014.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Vergeer MR,
    2. Doornaert PA,
    3. Rietveld DH,
    4. Leemans CR,
    5. Slotman BJ,
    6. Langendijk JA
    : Intensity-modulated radiotherapy reduces radiation-induced morbidity and improves health-related quality of life: results of a nonrandomized prospective study using a standardized follow-up program. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 74: 1-8, 2009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Schnipper LE,
    2. Davidson NE,
    3. Wollins DS,
    4. Blayney DW,
    5. Dicker AP,
    6. Ganz PA,
    7. Hoverman JR,
    8. Langdon R,
    9. Lyman GH,
    10. Meropol NJ,
    11. Mulvey T,
    12. Newcomer L,
    13. Peppercorn J,
    14. Polite B,
    15. Raghavan D,
    16. Rossi G,
    17. Saltz L,
    18. Schrag D,
    19. Smith TJ,
    20. Yu PP,
    21. Hudis CA,
    22. Vose JM,
    23. Schilsky RL
    : Updating the American Society of clinical oncology value framework: revisions and reflections in response to comments received. J Clin Oncol 34: 2925-2934, 2016.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    1. Verma V,
    2. Simone CB 2nd.,
    3. Mishra MV
    : Quality of Life and Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Proton Radiation Therapy: A Systematic Review. J Natl Cancer Inst 110, 2018. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djx208
  10. ↵
    1. Verma V,
    2. Mishra MV,
    3. Mehta MP
    : A systematic review of the cost and cost-effectiveness studies of proton radiotherapy. Cancer 122: 1483-1501, 2016.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Meyerhof E,
    2. Sprave T,
    3. Welte SE,
    4. Nicolay NH,
    5. Forster R,
    6. Bostel T,
    7. Bruckner T,
    8. Schlampp I,
    9. Debus J,
    10. Rief H
    : Radiation-induced toxicity after image-guided and intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus external beam radiotherapy for patients with spinal bone metastases (IRON-1): a study protocol for a randomized controlled pilot trial. Trials 18: 98, 2017.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Chow E,
    2. Nguyen J,
    3. Zhang L,
    4. Tseng LM,
    5. Hou MF,
    6. Fairchild A,
    7. Vassiliou V,
    8. Jesus-Garcia R,
    9. Alm El-Din MA,
    10. Kumar A,
    11. Forges F,
    12. Chie WC,
    13. Bottomley A
    : International field testing of the reliability and validity of the EORTC QLQ-BM22 module to assess health-related quality of life in patients with bone metastases. Cancer 118: 1457-1465, 2012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Chow E,
    2. Hird A,
    3. Velikova G,
    4. Johnson C,
    5. Dewolf L,
    6. Bezjak A,
    7. Wu J,
    8. Shafiq J,
    9. Sezer O,
    10. Kardamakis D,
    11. Linden Yv,
    12. Ma B,
    13. Castro M,
    14. Arnalot PF,
    15. Ahmedzai S,
    16. Clemons M,
    17. Hoskin P,
    18. Yee A,
    19. Brundage M,
    20. Bottomley A
    : The European organisation for research and treatment of cancer quality of life questionnaire for patients with bone metastases: the EORTC QLQ-BM22. Eur J Cancer 45: 1146-1152, 2009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Weis J,
    2. Arraras JI,
    3. Conroy T,
    4. Efficace F,
    5. Fleissner C,
    6. Gorog A,
    7. Hammerlid E,
    8. Holzner B,
    9. Jones L,
    10. Lanceley A,
    11. Singer S,
    12. Wirtz M,
    13. Flechtner H,
    14. Bottomley A
    : Development of an EORTC quality of life phase III module measuring cancer-related fatigue (EORTC QLQ-FA13). Psychooncology 22: 1002-1007, 2013.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Book K,
    2. Marten-Mittag B,
    3. Henrich G,
    4. Dinkel A,
    5. Scheddel P,
    6. Sehlen S,
    7. Haimerl W,
    8. Schulte T,
    9. Britzelmeir I,
    10. Herschbach P
    : Distress screening in oncology-evaluation of the Questionnaire on Distress in Cancer Patients-short form (QSC-R10) in a German sample. Psychooncology 20: 287-293, 2011.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Escalante CP
    : Treatment of cancer-related fatigue: an update. Support Care Cancer 11: 79-83, 2003.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Marks LB,
    2. Yorke ED,
    3. Jackson A,
    4. Ten Haken RK,
    5. Constine LS,
    6. Eisbruch A,
    7. Bentzen SM,
    8. Nam J,
    9. Deasy JO
    : Use of normal tissue complication probability models in the clinic. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 76: 10-19, 2010.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. ↵
    1. Sprave T,
    2. Verma V,
    3. Förster R,
    4. Schlampp I,
    5. Bruckner T,
    6. Bostel T,
    7. Welte SE,
    8. Tonndorf-Martini E,
    9. El Shafie R,
    10. Nicolay NH,
    11. Debus J,
    12. Rief H
    :Radiation-induced acute toxicities after image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for patients with spinal metastases (IRON-1 trial): First results of a randomized controlled trial. Strahlenther Onkol, 2018. doi: 10.1007/s00066-018-1333-z. [Epub ahead of print]
  19. ↵
    1. Zeng L,
    2. Chow E,
    3. Bedard G,
    4. Zhang L,
    5. Fairchild A,
    6. Vassiliou V,
    7. Alm El-Din MA,
    8. Jesus-Garcia R,
    9. Kumar A,
    10. Forges F,
    11. Tseng LM,
    12. Hou MF,
    13. Chie WC,
    14. Bottomley A
    : Quality of life after palliative radiation therapy for patients with painful bone metastases: results of an international study validating the EORTC QLQ-BM22. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 84: e337-342, 2012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Raman S,
    2. Ding K,
    3. Chow E,
    4. Meyer RM,
    5. Nabid A,
    6. Chabot P,
    7. Coulombe G,
    8. Ahmed S,
    9. Kuk J,
    10. Dar AR
    : A prospective study validating the EORTC QLQ-BM22 bone metastases module in patients with painful bone metastases undergoing palliative radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 119: 208-212, 2016.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Rief H,
    2. Akbar M,
    3. Keller M,
    4. Omlor G,
    5. Welzel T,
    6. Bruckner T,
    7. Rieken S,
    8. Hafner MF,
    9. Schlampp I,
    10. Gioules A,
    11. Debus J
    : Quality of life and fatigue of patients with spinal bone metastases under combined treatment with resistance training and radiation therapy- a randomized pilot trial. Radiat Oncol 9: 151, 2014.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Shaitelman SF,
    2. Schlembach PJ,
    3. Arzu I,
    4. Ballo M,
    5. Bloom ES,
    6. Buchholz D,
    7. Chronowski GM,
    8. Dvorak T,
    9. Grade E,
    10. Hoffman KE,
    11. Kelly P,
    12. Ludwig M,
    13. Perkins GH,
    14. Reed V,
    15. Shah S,
    16. Stauder MC,
    17. Strom EA,
    18. Tereffe W,
    19. Woodward WA,
    20. Ensor J,
    21. Baumann D,
    22. Thompson AM,
    23. Amaya D,
    24. Davis T,
    25. Guerra W,
    26. Hamblin L,
    27. Hortobagyi G,
    28. Hunt KK,
    29. Buchholz TA,
    30. Smith BD
    : Acute and short-term toxic effects of conventionally fractionated vs. hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 1: 931-941, 2015.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Nieder C,
    2. Dalhaug A,
    3. Haukland E,
    4. Engljähringer K
    : Patient-reported symptom burden, rate of completion of palliative radiotherapy and 30-day mortality in two groups of cancer patients managed with or without additional care by a multidisciplinary palliative care team. Anticancer Res 38: 2271-2275, 2018.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    1. Mitchell AJ,
    2. Chan M,
    3. Bhatti H,
    4. Halton M,
    5. Grassi L,
    6. Johansen C,
    7. Meader N
    : Prevalence of depression, anxiety, and adjustment disorder in oncological, haematological, and palliative-care settings: a meta-analysis of 94 interview-based studies. Lancet Oncol 12: 160-174, 2011.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Holtzman AL,
    2. Pereira DB,
    3. Yeung AR
    : Implementation of depression and anxiety screening in patients undergoing radiotherapy. BMJ Open Qual 7: e000034, 2018.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    1. Nieder C,
    2. Kämpe TA
    : Contribution of patient-reported symptoms before palliative radiotherapy to development of multi-variable prognostic models. Anticancer Res 38: 1705-1709, 2018.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Anticancer Research
Vol. 38, Issue 8
August 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Anticancer Research.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Quality of Life and Radiation-induced Late Toxicity Following Intensity-modulated Versus Three-dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy for Patients with Spinal Bone Metastases: Results of a Randomized Trial
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Anticancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Anticancer Research web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
1 + 2 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Quality of Life and Radiation-induced Late Toxicity Following Intensity-modulated Versus Three-dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy for Patients with Spinal Bone Metastases: Results of a Randomized Trial
TANJA SPRAVE, VIVEK VERMA, ROBERT FÖRSTER, INGMAR SCHLAMPP, KATHARINA HEES, THOMAS BRUCKNER, TILMAN BOSTEL, RAMI EL SHAFIE, NILS HENRIK NICOLAY, JÜRGEN DEBUS, HARALD RIEF
Anticancer Research Aug 2018, 38 (8) 4953-4960; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.12813

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Quality of Life and Radiation-induced Late Toxicity Following Intensity-modulated Versus Three-dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy for Patients with Spinal Bone Metastases: Results of a Randomized Trial
TANJA SPRAVE, VIVEK VERMA, ROBERT FÖRSTER, INGMAR SCHLAMPP, KATHARINA HEES, THOMAS BRUCKNER, TILMAN BOSTEL, RAMI EL SHAFIE, NILS HENRIK NICOLAY, JÜRGEN DEBUS, HARALD RIEF
Anticancer Research Aug 2018, 38 (8) 4953-4960; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.12813
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

  • Independent Validation of a Risk Stratification Model Predicting Survival in Elderly Patients Irradiated for Bone Metastases
  • Independent Validation of a Comprehensive Machine Learning Approach Predicting Survival After Radiotherapy for Bone Metastases
  • Palliative Radiotherapy as a Treatment for Carcinoma Invasion of the Sacrum: An Observational Case Series Study
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Surgical and Oncologic Outcomes in Uterine Carcinosarcoma: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis
  • Clinical Utility of the Preoperative Cachexia Index in Patients Undergoing Curative Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer
  • Efficacy of Platinum-based Chemotherapy for Platinum-sensitive Recurrent Ovarian Cancer During PARP Inhibitor Treatment: A Multicenter Retrospective Study
Show more Clinical Studies

Keywords

  • spinal metastases
  • quality of life
  • intensity-modulated radiotherapy
  • palliative radiotherapy
  • toxicity
Anticancer Research

© 2026 Anticancer Research

Powered by HighWire