Increased Dose in Spine Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Metastatic Disease: Are We Underestimating the Risks?
Medicina (Lithuania), ISSN: 1648-9144, Vol: 60, Issue: 9
2024
- 1Mentions
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Mentions1
- Blog Mentions1
- Blog1
Article Description
Background and Objectives: The recently published Spine Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SSRS) ESTRO guidelines advise against treating spinal metastatic disease with a single dose equal to or smaller than 18 Gy, prioritizing local control over the potential for complications. This study aims to assess the necessity and validity of these higher dose recommendations by evaluating the outcomes and experiences with lower radiation doses. Materials and Methods: A retrospective evaluation of SSRS patients treated at a single institute was conducted. The outcomes and complications of this cohort were compared to the current literature and the data supporting the new ESTRO guidelines. Results: A total of 149 treatment sessions involving 242 spinal levels were evaluated. The overall local control rate was 91.2%. The mean radiation dose for the local control group compared to the local failure group was similar (17.5 vs. 17.6 Gy, not significant). The overall complication rate was 6%. These results are consistent with previous publications evaluating SSRS for metastatic spinal disease. Conclusions: SSRS dose escalation may increase local control efficacy but comes with a higher risk of complications. The evidence supporting the strong recommendations in the recent ESTRO guidelines is not robust enough to justify a universal application. Given the palliative nature of treatment for metastatic patients, dose determination should be individualized based on patient conditions and preferences, with a detailed discussion about the risk–benefit ratio of increased doses and the level of evidence supporting these recommendations.
Bibliographic Details
MDPI AG
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know