Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_6036_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
15.09.2026
Размер:
16 Мб
Скачать
☆
1 MOSS: A Patient-Centered Approach
15
Fig. 1.6 Recommendations for surgery plus stereotactic
radiation therapy for a high-grade spinal cord compres­sion associated with a radioresistant tumor based on
ab
Fig. 1.7 (a, b) Sagittal
T2-weighted MRI (a) demonstrating spinal cord compression and 100% vertebral body collapse associated with multiple myeloma. Axial T1-weighted MRI (b) with contrast demonstrating bilobed, high-grade spinal cord compression
NOMS as presented by Yamada and Bilsky at IAEA Singapore SBRT Symposium in 2013. With permission from Yoshiya (Josh) Yamada, MD
16
R. A. W. Marco et al.
Fig. 1.8 Recommendations for conventional external
beam radiation therapy for high-grade spinal cord com­pression associated with a radiation sensitive tumor based
median survival time was estimated to be 5years. Stenosis evaluation revealed high-grade spinal cord compression. Despite this, the patient was still ambulatory. Stability evaluation, done using White and Panjabi’s criteria, further showed her to be physiologically stable, in that there were no signs of progressive deformity, progressive neu­rologic dysfunction, or persistent pain under physiologic loading.
Because multiple myeloma is exquisitely sen­sitive to radiation therapy, steroids and chemotherapy, these were at the top of the list of treatment options in this patient. In fact, because invasive surgery is generally not called for in such patients, Tokuhashi etal., Tomita etal., and Patchell et al. excluded patients with multiple myeloma from their studies [6, 35, 36]. If the NOMS assessment had been done in this patient, it too may have guided the practitioner to recom-
on NOMS as presented by Yamada and Bilsky at IAEA Singapore SBRT Symposium in 2013. With permission from Yoshiya (Josh) Yamada, MD
mend external beam radiation therapy (Fig.1.8) [43]. A further concern in this patient was that, although physiologic stability had been indicated by White and Panjabi’s assessment criteria, the patient’s SINS score of 11 indicated that her spine was potentially unstable. However, in our experience with vertebral plana (100% vertebral body collapse), we have found that the spine is usually physiologically stable unless there is facet incongruity, diastasis, or subluxation seen on MRI or CT scans.
On the basis of all these collective ndings and our personal experience, our team recom­mended non-operative treatment consisting of corticosteroids and radiation therapy followed by systemic chemotherapy. The patient agreed to this approach. She remained physiologically sta­ble (Fig.1.9a, b) and went on to regain full lower extremity strength.
1 MOSS: A Patient-Centered Approach
17
Case 3
A 67-year-old male presented with T11 spinal cord compression associated with previously radi­ated prostate carcinoma (Fig.1.10a, b). Medically, he had hypertension. Mentally he was alert and oriented and had a desire to live. His ECOG per­formance status was 3 as he was in bed greater than 50% of the time. Oncologically, his tumor was resistant to hormonal treatment and radiation
Fig. 1.9 (a, b) Sagittal (a)
and axial (b) T2-weighted MRI 2years after radiation therapy demonstrates elimination of spinal cord compression and maintenance of spinal alignment. Reproduced with permission from: Marco R, Ashana D, Kay A: Modern Techniques in the Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Spine Disease, in Parvizi J, Huddleston JI III (eds): Instructional Course Lectures 67. Rosemont, IL, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 2018
a b
therapy. His Tokuhashi score was 12, indicating that he could expect to survive for more than 1year. Thus palliative surgery was considered rea­sonable in this patient. His Tomita score of 3 indi­cated that “wide or marginal excision” was a reasonable. Stenosis evaluation revealed high­grade spinal cord compression. Of further note, stenosis evaluation revealed high- grade spinal cord compression. Despite this, the patient
ab
Fig. 1.10 (a, b) Sagittal T2-weighted MRI (a) demon-
strating recurrent spinal cord compression associated with previously irradiated and hormonally treated prostate
carcinoma. Axial T1-weighted MRI (b) demonstrates high- grade, bilobed spinal cord compression with pedicle, lamina, and transverse process involvement
18
ab
Fig. 1.11 (a, b) AP and
lateral radiograph of the thoracic spine following transpedicular excision of tumor with anterior column reconstruction with polymethylmethacrylate cement and Steinman pins and posterior stabilization with spinal instrumentation
R. A. W. Marco et al.
remained ambulatory. Stability evaluation done using White and Panjabi’s criteria showed this patient to be physiologically unstable as his asso­ciated pain was recalcitrant to medical manage­ment. His SINS score of 8 likewise suggested potential spinal instability.
On the basis of these ndings, our team rec­ommended a transpedicular excision with ante­rior cement and pin reconstruction and posterior spinal instrumentation (Fig.1.11a, b). The patient regained full strength and was alive and well at his last follow-up.

References

1. Dunn RC, Kelly WA, Wohns RNW, Howe JF.Spinal
epidural neoplasia. J Neurosurg. 1980;52(1):47–51.
https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1980.52.1.0047.
2. Gilbert RW, Kim J-H, Posner JB.Epidural spinal cord
compression from metastatic tumor: diagnosis and treatment. Ann Neurol. 1978;3(1):40–51. https://doi.
org/10.1002/ana.410030107.
3. Livingston KE, Perrin RG.The neurosurgical man-
agement of spinal metastases causing cord and cauda equina compression. J Neurosurg. 1978;49(6):839–
43. https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1978.49.6.0839.
4. Young RF, Post EM, King GA.Treatment of spinal
epidural metastases. J Neurosurg. 1980;53(6):741–8.
https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1980.53.6.0741.
5. Rompe JD, Hopf CG, Eysel P. Outcome after
palliative posterior surgery for metastatic dis­ease of the spine—evaluation of 106 consecutive
patients after decompression and stabilisation with the Cotrel- Dubousset instrumentation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1999;119(7–8):394–400.
6. Patchell RA, Tibbs PA, Regine WF, Payne R, Saris S, Kryscio RJ, et al. Direct decompressive surgical resection in the treatment of spinal cord compression caused by metastatic cancer: a ran­domised trial. Lancet. 2005;366(9486):643–8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(05)66954-1.
7. Cassady JR, Sagerman RH, Chang CH. Radiation therapy for lymphoma of the spinal canal. Radiology. 1967;89(2):313–5. https://doi.org/10.1148/89.2.313.
8. Friedman M, Kim TH, Panahon AM. Spinal cord compression in malignant lymphoma—treatment and results. Cancer. 1976;37(3):1485–91. https://
doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(197603)37:3<1485::aid­cncr2820370334>3.0.co;2-l.
9. Khan FR, Glicksman AS, Chu FCH, Nickson JJ. Treatment by radiotherapy of spinal cord com­pression due to extradural metastases. Radiology. 1967;89(3):495–500. https://doi.org/10.1148/89.3.495.
10. Martin WE.Radiation therapy for paraplegia due to multiple myeloma. JAMA. 1965;191(3):247. https://
doi.org/10.1001/jama.1965.03080030091020.
11. Mones RJ, Dozier D, Berrett A. Analysis of medi­cal treatment of malignant extradural spinal cord tumors. Cancer. 1966;19(12):1842–53. https://doi.
org/10.1002/1097-0142(196612)19:12<1842::aid­cncr2820191212>3.0.co;2-v.
12. Murphy WT, Bilge N.Compression of the spinal cord in patients with malignant lymphoma. Radiology. 1964;82(3):495–501. https://doi.org/10.1148/82.3.495.
13. Raichle ME, Posner JB. The treatment of extradural spinal cord compression. Neurology. 1970;20(4):391.
14. Rubin P, Miller G.Extradural spinal cord compres­sion by tumor. Radiology. 1969;93(6):1243–8. https://
doi.org/10.1148/93.6.1243.
1 MOSS: A Patient-Centered Approach
19
15. Rubin P, Mayer E, Poulter C. Part II: high daily dose experience without laminectomy. Radiology. 1969;93(6):1248–60. https://doi.org/10.1148/93.6.1248.
16. Chi JH, Gokaslan Z, McCormick P, Tibbs PA, Kryscio RJ, Patchell RA.Selecting treatment for patients with malignant epidural spinal cord compression—does age matter? Spine. 2009;34(5):431–5. https://doi.
org/10.1097/brs.0b013e318193a25b.
17. George R, Jeba J, Ramkumar G, Chacko AG, Leng M, Tharyan P.Interventions for the treatment of meta­static extradural spinal cord compression in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Wiley; 2008.
18. Laufer I, Rubin DG, Lis E, Cox BW, Stubbleeld MD, Yamada Y, etal. The NOMS framework: approach to the treatment of spinal metastatic tumors. Oncologist. 2013;18(6):744–51. https://doi.org/10.1634/
theoncologist.2012-0293.
19. Bilsky MH, Laufer I, Fourney DR, Groff M, Schmidt MH, Varga PP, etal. Reliability analysis of the epi­dural spinal cord compression scale. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;13(3):324–8. https://doi.org/10.3171/20
10.3.spine09459.
20. Lim ZD, Mahajan A, Weinberg J, Tannir NM. Outcome of patients with renal cell carcinoma metastatic to the brain treated with sunitinib without local therapy. Am J Clin Oncol. 2013;36(3):258–60.
https://doi.org/10.1097/coc.0b013e3182467b9a.
21. Rousseau B, Kempf E, Desamericq G, Boissier E, Chaubet-Houdu M, Joly C, et al. First-line anti­angiogenics for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2016;107:44–53. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2016.08.012.
22. Gerszten PC, Mendel E, Yamada Y. Radiotherapy and radiosurgery for metastatic spine disease. Spine. 2009;34(22 Suppl):S78–92. https://doi.org/10.1097/
brs.0b013e3181b8b6f5.
23. Gerszten PC, Burton SA, Ozhasoglu C, Welch WC. Radiosurgery for spinal metastases. Spine. 2007;32(2):193–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.
brs.0000251863.76595.a2.
24. Ryu S, Rock J, Jain R, Lu M, Anderson J, Jin J-Y, et al. Radiosurgical decompression of metastatic epidural compression. Cancer. 2010;116(9):2250–7.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.24993.
25. Ryu S, Rock J, Rosenblum M, Kim JH.Patterns of failure after single-dose radiosurgery for spinal metas­tasis. J Neurosurg. 2004;101(Suppl 3):402–5. https://
doi.org/10.3171/jns.2004.101.supplement3.0402.
26. Gerszten PC, Burton SA, Ozhasoglu C, Vogel WJ, Welch WC, Baar J, et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery for spinal metastases from renal cell carcinoma. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005;3(4):288–95. https://doi.
org/10.3171/spi.2005.3.4.0288.
27. Fisher CG, DiPaola CP, Ryken TC, Bilsky MH, Shaffrey CI, Berven SH, et al. A novel classica­tion system for spinal instability in neoplastic dis­ease. Spine. 2010;35(22):E1221–E9. https://doi.
org/10.1097/brs.0b013e3181e16ae2.
28. Kris MG, Natale RB, Herbst RS, Lynch JTJ, Prager D, Belani CP, et al. Efcacy of getinib, an inhibi­tor of the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase, in symptomatic patients with non–small cell lung cancer. JAMA. 2003;290(16):2149. https://doi.
org/10.1001/jama.290.16.2149.
29. Rosell R, Carcereny E, Gervais R, Vergnenegre A, Massuti B, Felip E, et al. Erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy as rst-line treatment for European patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (EURTAC): a multicen­tre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(3):239–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/
s1470-2045(11)70393-x.
30. Paez JG.EGFR mutations in lung cancer: correlation with clinical response to getinib therapy. Science. 2004;304(5676):1497–500. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.1099314.
31. Berenson J, Pugmacher R, Jarzem P, Zonder J, Schechtman K, Tillman JB, etal. Balloon kyphoplasty versus non-surgical fracture management for treat­ment of painful vertebral body compression fractures in patients with cancer: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(3):225–35.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(11)70008-0.
32. Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, Horton J, Davis TE, McFadden ET, et al. Toxicity and response cri­teria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol. 1982;5(6):649–56. https://doi.
org/10.1097/00000421-198212000-00014.
33. Conill C, Verger E, Salamero M. Performance status assessment in cancer patients. Cancer. 1990;65(8):1864–6. https://doi.
org/10.1002/1097-0142(19900415)65:8<1864::aid­cncr2820650832>3.0.co;2-u.
34. Maranzano E, Latini P. Effectiveness of radiation therapy without surgery in metastatic spinal cord compression: nal results from a prospective trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995;32(4):959–67. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(95)00572-g.
35. Tokuhashi Y, Matsuzaki H, Oda H, Oshima M, Ryu J. A revised scoring system for preoperative evalu­ation of metastatic spine tumor prognosis. Spine. 2005;30(19):2186–91. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.
brs.0000180401.06919.a5.
36. Tomita K, Kawahara N, Kobayashi T, Yoshida A, Murakami H, Akamaru T.Surgical strategy for spinal metastases. Spine. 2001;26(3):298–306. https://doi.
org/10.1097/00007632-200102010-00016.
37. Panjabi MM.Clinical spinal instability and low back pain. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2003;13(4):371–9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s1050-6411(03)00044-0.
38. Tokuhashi Y, Matsuzaki H, Oda H, Oshima M, Ryu J.A revised scoring system for preoperative evalua­tion of metastatic spine tumor prognosis. In: Tumors TRESftPoMS, editor. Spine (Phila Pa 1976): Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health); 2005. p. Table2. Revised Evaluation System for the Prognosis of Metastatic Spine Tumors.
20
R. A. W. Marco et al.
39. Tomita K, Kawahara N, Kobayashi T, Yoshida A, Murakami H, Akamaru T. Surgical strategy for spi­nal metastases. In: metastases FSsfs, editor. Spine: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health); 2001. p. Figure1. Surgical strategy for spinal metastases.
40. Wang JC, Boland P, Mitra N, Yamada Y, Lis E, Stubbleeld M, et al. Single-stage posterolateral transpedicular approach for resection of epidural met­astatic spine tumors involving the vertebral body with circumferential reconstruction: results in 140 patients. J Neurosurg Spine. 2004;1(3):287–98. Figure1.
41. Fisher CG, DiPaola CP, Ryken TC, Bilsky MH, Shaffrey CI, Berven SH, etal. A novel classication system for spinal instability in neoplastic disease.
Spine: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health);
2010. p. Table1 The SINS classication according to Fisher etal.
42. Fisher CG, DiPaola CP, Ryken TC, Bilsky MH, Shaffrey CI, Berven SH etal. A novel classication system for spinal instability in neoplastic disease. Spine: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health);
2010. p. Table 2 SINS scores organized as a total score, three-clinical categories, and binary scale with their corresponding levels of stability where surgical consultation is recommended for a total score >7.
43. Yamada Y, Bilsky MH. IAEA Singapore SBRT Symposium. 2013.

Relative Radiosensitivity of Metastatic Spine Disease

Waqar Haque and Bin S. Teh
2
Cancer metastasizing to the spine is a common clinical condition seen in approximately 10% of all patients with cancer and up to 40% of patients with metastatic disease [1–3]. Spinal metastases often initially present as back pain, though other symptoms include sensory decit, radicular pain, weakness, bowel/bladder dysfunction, and paral­ysis. The goals of treatment with radiation ther­apy are to provide palliation, tumor control, improvement or recovery of neurologic function, spine stability, and improvement of quality of life [4]. There is substantial heterogeneity of response to EBRT among patients, different tumor histolo­gies, different metastatic nodules within the same patient, and even different regions of the same tumor. The present report will describe radiosen­sitivity of metastatic disease within the spine and the implications this has in guiding treatment for this disease process.
Before describing radiosensitivity, it may be benecial to provide a brief summary of the mechanism of action of EBRT delivered with the use of photons. Please note that the mechanism of action of radiation therapy delivered by charged particles is different than the process described herein. Typically, a linear accelerator
W. Haque, MD • B. S. Teh, MD (*) Radiation Oncology Department, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, USA e-mail: bteh@houstonmethodist.org
shoots high-energy photons into tissue, ejecting orbital electrons from atoms in a process called ionization [5]. Radiation can damage DNA directly, in which the electron ejected from the atom damages DNA, or indirectly, in which the electron ejected from the atom interacts with a water molecule to create a hydroxyl free radical which then causes DNA damage. Types of DNA damage induced by ionizing radiation include single-strand breaks, double-strand breaks (DSBs), base damage, and DNA-protein cross­links, with DSBs thought to be the primary method of radiation-induced cell kill [6, 7]. The predominant pathway of cell killing caused by radiation is mitotic cell death, a process in which cells attempting to undergo mitosis will be unable to replicate and will die due to chromosome dam­age [7]. Radiation can also induce apoptosis within tumor cells, though this is more prominent in lymphoid and hemopoietic cells and is not seen in some solid tumors [8]. Cells are most radiosensitive in the M and G cycle and least sensitive in the later part of the S phase, possibly due to the greater ability of DNA to repair double-strand breaks by homologous recombination when an undamaged sister chro­matid is present [9, 10].
The radiosensitivity of a cancer cell is further inuenced by the following four factors. The rst is the number of clonogenic cells, that is, a cell that has retained reproductive integrity and is able to proliferate indenitely to produce a col­ony, within the tumor [11]. A greater number of
phases of the cell
2
© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018 R. A. W. Marco (ed.), Metastatic Spine Disease, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76252-4_2
21
22
W. Haque and B. S. Teh
clonogens increased the likelihood that it will be able to withstand treatment with radiation. Secondly, the number of cells that are proliferat­ing and the tumor growth kinetics within the tumor can have an impact on response to EBRT. Rapidly dividing cells are typically more radio­sensitive because they are less likely to be able to repair DNA damage, are more likely to be in a radiosensitive portion of the cell cycle when receiving radiation, and are more likely to reas­sort into a radiosensitive portion of the cell cycle with fractionation of treatment [11, 12]. Additionally, increasing levels of hypoxia adversely impact the effect of EBRT.Since most of the radiation damage delivered by photons is mediated by oxygenated free radicals, the absence of oxygen limits the potency of radiation therapy, and tumors with poor circulation display increased radioresistance [13, 14]. Fourth, differ­ent tumor cells have a varying degree of ability to repair DNA damage, and this intrinsic ability to repair the DNA has a signicant impact on radio­sensitivity. In one study, investigators transfected the double-strand break repair gene DNA-PKcs into a cloned tumor cell line from severe com­bined immunodecient mice and then trans­planted this tumor in the same strain of mice and were able to show an increase in tumor cell radio­resistance by the introduction of DNA-PKcs, leading the authors to conclude that the intrinsic radiosensitivity of tumor cells is a major factor in determining radiosensitivity [15].
Multiple methods have been proposed as ways to measure radiosensitivity. One such method has been to record the fraction of tumor cells that sur­vives after being exposed to 2 Gray (Gy), though clinically this did not demonstrate a relevant pre­dictive parameter for patients with head and neck squamous cell cancer [16]. Investigators have attempted to measure the potential doubling time from tumor cells obtained invitro from patients with head and neck cancer, though this also failed to have a correlation with oncologic outcome [17]. Measurement of pretreatment tumor oxy­genation can predict radiosensitivity. In patients receiving denitive radiation therapy for cervical cancer and head and neck cancer, pretreatment tumor hypoxia was predictive of worse overall survival, disease-free survival, and local control
[18, 19]. Functional positron emission tomography- computerized tomography (PET/ CT) imaging conducted twice during the early course of EBRT after the initiation of treatment can also quantify the responsiveness of the tumor to therapy, potentially allowing for adjustment of treatment based on the radiosensitivity displayed by the tumor [20]. Proteomic methods have revealed the presence of specic protein bio­markers that can predict for radiosensitivity prior to the initiation of treatment in breast, colon, rec­tal, and prostate cancers [21–24]. Bioinformatical analysis has demonstrated that the overexpres­sion of certain plasma miRNAs was associated with a greater response to EBRT in patients with non-small cell lung cancer [25].
Unfortunately, none of the abovementioned methods have to date gained widespread clinical application. The primary method of determining radiation sensitivity in clinical practice has been based on tumor histology, despite the known het­erogeneity of radiation response within the tumors [4, 26]. The tumors that have been dem­onstrated to have relative radiosensitive histolo­gies include lymphoma, seminoma, and myeloma; tumors with relative radioresistant his­tologies include melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, some sarcomas, and gastrointestinal cancers; and tumors with an intermediate degree of radiosen­sitivity include prostate cancer and breast cancer [4, 27]. It is necessary to keep in mind that this is a broad overview, and while this classication does have treatment applications, there are cer­tain subgroups of patients within these disease sites that can have different responses to radia­tion. For example, it has been demonstrated that there are tumor markers within patients with breast cancer that can predict for treatment response, and patients with triple-negative dis­ease may have decreased radiosensitivity than those with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, pro­gesterone receptor (PR)-positive disease [28, 29].
The radiosensitivity of the cancer can be used to guide management of patients with spinal metastatic disease. Conventional radiation ther­apy (CRT) alone can improve neurologic func­tion in select patients with radiosensitive tumors, and in one study 67% of patients with radiosen­sitive tumor histologies regained ambulation
2 Relative Radiosensitivity of Metastatic Spine Disease
23
following CRT alone [30]. A retrospective review from Japan demonstrated a difference in response for patients with spinal metastases treated with CRT alone based on the radiosensi­tivity of the tumor, with 87% of patients with radiosensitive tumors responding to radiation, compared to a response rate of just 49% for patients with radioresistant histologies [31]. Other studies have conrmed that the histology of the tumor is associated with response to radia­tion treatment for metastatic spinal cord com­pression [32, 33]. The optimal radiation dose and fractionation for treatment of radiosensitive tumors with CRT are controversial. While there is data showing equivalent palliation with single­fraction (SF) or multi-fraction (MF) treatments,
a
MF treatments are associated with better longer­term local control and decreased re-treatment, suggesting that MF treatment may be preferable for patients with spinal metastases [33–35]. The most typical MF fractionation scheme is 30Gy in 10 fractions. Due to the superior outcomes associated with CRT or radiosensitive tumors, some authors advocate for CRT alone in patients with spinal metastatic disease with or without cord compression in this patient population, though the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) guidelines recommend sur­gical intervention for most patients with a good performance status and life expectancy >3months, regardless of histology with postop­erative CRT [4, 36] (Fig.2.1).
b
Fig. 2.1 Images displaying a patient with cord compression at L1 due to multiple myeloma and complete resolution of
the compression 11weeks after completion of conventionally fractionated radiation (from [4])
24
W. Haque and B. S. Teh
Radioresistant tumors do not respond well to CRT, with studies reporting only a 20–33% response rate with CRT alone in this patient pop­ulation, with a time to progression of 1–3months in patients who respond [30, 31]. This is partially because of the inability to achieve a tumoricidal dose with conventional techniques, as in CRT the dose delivered to the tumor within the spine is the same dose received by the spinal cord. Consequently, the radiation dose is limited by the radiation tolerance dose of the spinal cord. One solution to overcome radioresistance is to deliver higher, ablative doses to the tumor while sparing the dose delivered to the spinal cord using a tech­nique called stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Advances in radiation therapy technol­ogy including the use of image fusion, develop­ment of more rigid immobilization devices, computerized treatment planning, image-guided radiation treatment (IGRT), and intensity­modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) have allowed the delivery of this conformal treatment [37] (Fig.2.2).
Intracranial, single-fraction SBRT has been demonstrated to overcome radioresistance for intracranial metastatic disease and demon­strated equivalent local control for both radio­resistant and radiosensitive tumor histologies [38–40]. The success of treatment of radioresis­tant intracranial disease with SBRT leads to
Fig. 2.2 Image demonstrating the ability to sculpt dose
around the spinal cord with SBRT. Red color indicates the tumor (from [55])
experimentation of radioresistant extracranial disease with SBRT, with similarly successful outcomes. In the largest series of patients treated with single- fraction spine SBRT, 500 patients with metastases in the spine were treated to a mean dose of 20Gy and achieved a 90% local control rate, with 84% of patients displaying neurologic improvement [41]. There was no difference in outcome based on tumor histology. In a review of 103 patients with radioresistant oligometastatic disease treated with spine SBRT to a dose of 18–24Gy, Yamada etal. demonstrated a local control rate of 92% [42]. In a later review of this cohort, a higher dose was associated with superior local control, with a 97% local control rate at 3years reported for patients receiving a dose of 24Gy [43]. Due to the excellent outcomes achieved with SBRT for spinal metastatic disease, patients with radioresistant tumors without cord compression are recommended to receive treatment with SBRT alone [4].
Patients with radioresistant tumors with cord compression, however, are considered for upfront decompressive surgery followed by postopera­tive SBRT [44]. In a retrospective review from Memorial Sloan-Kettering, 186 patients with epi­dural spinal cord compression were treated with surgical decompression followed by postopera­tive single-fraction SBRT to 24 Gy, high-dose hypofractionated SBRT to 24–30Gy in 3 frac­tions, or low-dose hypofractionated SBRT to 18–36 Gy in 5–6 fractions. Local progression was 4.1% for the high-dose SBRT arm, while it was 22.6% for the low-dose SBRT arm, with equivalent outcomes seen for patients with radio­sensitive and radioresistant histologies [45]. A second retrospective review reporting on out­comes for patients with spinal metastases treated postoperatively with SBRT from the University of Toronto showed a 1-year local control rate of 84%, with equivalent outcomes for patients regardless of histology, though superior local control was observed for patients treated with high-dose SBRT (18–26Gy in 1 or 2 fractions) when compared to patients treated with low-dose SBRT (18–40 Gy in 3–5 fractions) [46] (Table2.1).