Better pain control with 8-gray single fraction palliative radiotherapy for skeletal metastases: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Introduction

Metastatic disease is a common source of bone pain [ 1 ]. Bone metastases are debilitating and lead to pain, impaired mobility, malignant hypercalcemia, pathological fractures, and, when the spinal cord is involved, neurological disability [ 2 ]. Also, severe hypercalcemia can lead to cardiac and kidney failure [ 3 ], with marked decrease in median survival [ 4 ]. As lung, thyroid, and renal cancer, multiple myeloma and melanoma often metastasize to bone [ 5 , 6 ], bone metastases are common in the spine, pelvis and hip, shoulder, and distal femur [ 7 ] with elbow and knee metastases typical of lung cancer metastases [ 8 ]. The exact incidence of bone metastases is still unknown [ 3 ], but they impact greatly on patients and health care systems [ 9 ]. Approximately 70% to 90% of the patients who died from breast or prostate cancer develop bone metastases [ 10 , 11 ]. Over the past several years, an increased interest on External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) as management for selected patients with skeletal metastases has emerged [ 12 ]. EBRT achieved satisfactory results in pain control along with reduced burden in terms of both hospital attendances and side effects [ 13 – 15 ]. The dose pattern is measured in Gray (Gy), while the number of sessions is called fractions. Several studies have shown that 30 Gy in 10 fractions, 20 Gy in 5 fractions, or 8 Gy in a single fraction afford optimal pain control with acceptable adverse effects [ 16 ]. Given the complexity and lack of consensus concerning the palliative radiotherapy for patients with skeletal metastases, we performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing the three most commonly used dose patterns: 8Gy in one fraction, 20Gy and 30Gy in five and ten fractions, respectively.

Material and methods

Search strategy

The present Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analysis of health care interventions [ 17 ]. To guide the search, a preliminary protocol was performed: P (population): skeletal metastases; I (intervention): palliative radiotherapy; C (comparison): 8Gy vs 20Gy vs 30Gy; O (outcomes): pain scores and medications, further therapies, side effects, survivorship.

Literature search

Two authors (FM; JE) independently performed the literature search in October 2020. The databases accessed were Pubmed, Google Scholar, Scopus. The following keywords were used alone and in combination: metastasis, skeletal, bone, radiotherapy, irradiation, Gray, survivorship, pain, treatment, fractures, spinal cord compression, cancer, 8Gy, 20Gy, 30Gy. The same authors independently screened the resulting articles. If title and subsequent abstract matched the topic, the full-text article was accessed. The bibliographies of the studies of interest were also reviewed by hand.

Eligibility criteria

All randomized clinical trials evaluating irradiation of painful bone metastases were considered for analysis. Only articles of level I evidence according to the Oxford Centre of Evidenced-Based Medicine [ 18 ] were included in the present study. Given the authors languages capabilities, articles in English, German, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish were considered eligible. Letters to editors, expert opinions, case series, and other review articles were not considered for analysis. Cadaveric, animal, in vitro or computational study were excluded. The following irradiation patterns were analysed and included in the present network meta-analysis: 8Gy and 10Gy in one fraction, 20Gy in five fractions, 30GY in 10 fractions. Articles reporting data concerning different irradiation patterns were excluded. Only articles providing quantitative data under the outcomes of interest were included. Missing data under the outcomes of interest warranted the exclusion from the present work. Disagreements between the authors were mutually debated and solved.

Outcomes of interest

Two authors (FM; JE) independently extracted data from the included articles. The following variables were collected: author and year of publication, follow-up duration, number of treated patients and respective mean age and gender. Furthermore, the inclusion and exclusion criteria were reported along with the site of the primary tumour and localization of metastases. Concerning the treatment, we collected data regarding irradiation site and doses, pre- and post-treatment pain scores and medication, further therapies, side effects and survivorship.

Statistical analysis

The statistical analysis was performed by the main author (FM). To analyse patient baseline comparability, the analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was performed, with values of P > 0.1 considered satisfactory. The endpoint pain medication consumption relates to the percentage of patients using that drug. For analytical statistics, the STATA Software/MP (STATACorp, College Station, TX) was used. The Bayesian hierarchical random-effect model analysis was adopted in all comparisons. A reference value was set in all comparisons. The Log Odds-Ratio (LOR) and standard error (SE) statistical method for dichotomic data was adopted for analysis. The edge plot was performed to evaluate contribution of direct and indirect comparisons among the networks. To verify transitivity among studies, the overall inconsistency was evaluated through the equation for global linearity via the Wald test. Values of P > 0.05 could not reject the null hypothesis, and the consistency assumption could be accepted at the overall level of each treatment. The overall estimated effect of the comparisons and ranking for each endpoint was evaluated through the interval plot. Both the confidence interval (CI) and percentile interval (PrI) was set at 95%. Funnel plots were performed to evaluate the risk of publication bias among the studies.

Results

Literature search

The literature search resulted in 188 publications, of which 41 were duplicates. A further 82 articles were excluded because not matching the eligibility criteria: not randomized trial or poor level of evidence (45); concerning different doses or fractionations and radiotherapeutic protocols (23); language limitation (1), uncertain results (3), other (10). Another 45 articles were rejected for not reporting quantitative data under the outcomes of interest. Finally, 15 randomized clinical trials were eligible for analysis in the present study (Fig. 1 ). Fig. 1 Flow-chart of the literature search

Study demographics

In the present Bayesian network meta-analysis, data from 3595 patients were analysed. The mean follow-up was 9.5 (1 to 28) months. The cumulative mean age was 63.3 ± 2.9. 40.61% (1461 of 3595 patients) were female. The ANOVA test evidenced no differences regarding age or sex of patients among the studies at baseline (P > 0.5). Demographic data are shown in Table 1 . Table 1 Demographic data of studies included for analysis Author, year Follow-up (months) Dose Patients (n) Mean age Female gender (%) Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria Primary tumour site Metastases localization/irradiated sites Amouzegar-Hashemi et al. 2008 [ 44 ] 1 8 Gy/1 fraction 27 51.6 (1) adult (2) uncomplicated metastases (1) spinal cord compression (2) existing or impending pathologic fracture 30 Gy/10 fractions 31 51.6 Bone Pain Trial Working Party, 1999 [ 45 ] 12 8 Gy/1 fraction 382 67.0 50 (1) age > 18 (1) pathological fracture of a long bone (2) previous radiotherapy to the index site 36% Breast, 33% Prostate, 13% Lung, 2% Unknown, 16% Other 27% Pelvis/hip, 20% Spine, 11% Ribs, 10% Thoracic spine, 6% Femur, 3% Lumbar Spine, 2% Cervical Spine, 21% Other 30 Gy/10 fractions 8 66.0 46 36% Breast, 36% Prostate, 10% Lung, 3% Unknown, 15% Other 29% Pelvis/hip, 20% Spine, 10% Ribs, 8% Thoracic Spine, 6% Femur, 3% Lumbar Spine, 2% Cervical Spine, 22% Other 20 Gy/5 frarctions 370 Foro Arnalot et al. 2008 [ 46 ] 3 8 Gy/1 fraction 78 64.8 42 (1) age > 18 (2) life expectancy > 1 month (1) pathological fracture or impending fracture according to Mirels’ criteria (2) evidence of spinal cord compression (3) multiple metastasis (4) prior radiotherapy at the same site (5) impossible pain assessment due to an overall poor healthy state or to difficulties in applying the ordinal pain scale 27% Breast, 24% Lung, 24% Prostate, 4% Myeloma, 13% Digestive, 8% Others 45% Pelvis, 37% Spine, 10% Long bone, 8% Others 30 Gy/10 fractions 82 63.4 43 27 % Breast, 27% Lung, 26% Prostate, 11% Myeloma, 7% Digestive, 2% Others 34% Pelvis, 36% Spine, 18% Long bone, 12% Others Gutierrez Bayard et al. 2014 [ 47 ] 12 8 G y /1 fraction 45 62.6 38 (1) Karnofsky Performance > 50 (2) life expectancy > 6 weeks (1) large bony lesions on the spine or pelvis requiring fixation (2) impending or established pathological fracture (3) spinal cord compression (4) previous radiotherapy at the same site 11% Lung, 31% Prostate, 40% Breast, 18% Other 16% Limb, 62% Axial Skeletal, 7% Cranial, 13% Axial + Limbs, 2% Limbs + Cranial 30 Gy/10 fractions 45 61.8 42 20% Lung, 38% Prostate, 20% Breast, 22% Other 7% Limb, 73% Axial Skeletal, 7% Cranial, 7% Axial + Limbs, 9% Limbs + Cranial, 2% Axial + Cranial Hartsell et al. 2005 [ 48 ] 3 8 Gy/1 fraction 445 65.5 51 (1) age > 18 (2) diagnosis of malignancy of breast and prostate (3) Karnofsky Performance Status > 40 (4) life expectancy > 3 months (5) Brief Pain Inventory > 5/10 (6) more than 3 separate metastases (7) no introduction of any systemic therapy < 30 days (1) pathological or impending fracture (2) planned surgical fixation (3) spinal cord or cauda equina compression 56% Weight bearing, 44% Non-weight bearing 30 Gy/10 fractions 443 65.1 50 56% Weight bearing, 44% Non-weight bearing Kaasa et al. 2006 [ 49 ] 18 8 Gy/1 fraction 186 66.7 40 (1) Karnofsky Performance Status > 40 (2) life expectancy > 6 weeks (1) previous irradiation (2) spinal cord compression (3) planned orthopaedic surgery, unable to complete the QOL assessment tools, life expectancy less than 6 weeks 11% Lung, 38% Prostate, 28% Breast, 23% other 39% Spine, 35% Pelvis, 20% Extremities, 5% Other 30 Gy/10 fractions 190 67.0 48 11% Lung, 36% Prostate, 32% Breast, 22% Other 37% Spine, 35% Pelvis, 19% Extremities, 9% Other Kagei et al. 1990 [ 50 ] 2 8 Gy/1 fraction (1) chemotherapy on same day as radiotherapy (2) fracture determining spine compression (3) pathological fracture 10 Gy/1 fraction 15 Gy/1 fraction 20 Gy/4 fractions 25 Gy/5 fractions 30 Gy/6 fractions Kirkbride et al. 2000 [ 51 ] 3 8 Gy/1 fraction 137 20 Gy/5 fractions 124 Koswig et al. 1999 52 ] 6 8 Gy/1 fraction (1) diagnosis of breast, lung, prostate and kidney carcinoma (2) solitary osteolysis with or without fracture risk (3) osteolytic lesion suitable for bone density measurements via CT (1) prior irradiation (2) new systematic therapies < 2 weeks 30 Gy/10 fractions Loblaw et al. 2006 [ 53 ] 8 Gy/1 fraction 23 66.5 (3) age > 18 (2) life expectancy > 4 months (1) multiple myeloma (2) changes in systemic therapy for their cancer < 1 month 20 Gy/5 fractions 21 66.5 Majumder et al. 2012 [ 54 ] 8 Gy/1 fraction 31 60.0 19.4 (1) age < 75 years (2) Karnofsky Performance Status > 40 (1) spinal cord compression (2) pathologic fracture (3) wide area of multiple spinal metastases (4) existing bone disease (5) previous radiation to spine or any site overlapping the treatment site 77% Prostate, 4% Breast, 2% Lung 3 % Cervical, 64.5% Lumbar, 6.5% Sacral, 26% Thoracic 30 Gy/10 fractions 33 58.0 15 8% Prostate, 1% Cervix, 3% Lung, 1% Breast 6 % Cervical, 54% Lumbar, 9% Sacral, 30% Thoracic Nielsena et al. 1998 [ 55 ] 5 8 Gy/1 fraction 120 67.0 44 (1) life expectancy more than 6 weeks (1) previous radiotherapy in the same site (2) pathological fractures (3) spinal cord compression (4) changes in the systemic treatment both before or after the radiation 35% Breast, 38% Prostate, 13% Lung, 14% Other 47% Dorsal/Lumbar Spine, 20% Pelvis, 15% Hip/Femur, 18% Other 20 Gy/4 fractions 119 67.0 60 44% Breast, 29% Prostate, 13% Lung, 14% Other 37%Dorsal/Lumbar Spine, 22% Pelvis, 22% Hip/Femur, 19% Other Price et al. 1986 [ 56 ] 28 8 Gy/1 fraction 108 61.4 (1) life expectancy > 6 weeks (1) pathological fractures of long bone (2) previous radiotherapy in the same site (2) change in systemic therapy < 6 weeks 36% Breast, 21% Lung, 7% Prostate, 2% Kidney, 6% Myeloma, 28% others 1% Cervical Spine, 51% Dorsal/Lumbosacral Spine, 22% Pelvis/Hip, 8% ribs, 17% Others 30 Gy/10 fractions 95 62.0 39% Breast, 19% Lung, 10% Prostate, 3% Kidney, 1% Myeloma, 20% Others 2% cervical spine, 47% Dorsal/Lumbosacral Spine, 30% Pelvis/Hip, 5% Ribs, 16% Others Roos et al. 2005 [ 57 ] 12 8 Gy/1 fraction 137 67.0 27 (1) pain or dysaesthesia predominantly of a neuropathic nature (2) life expectancy > 6 weeks (1) neuropathic pain distribution (2) prior radiotherapy in the same site (3) spinal cord compression (4) cauda equina syndrome (5) pathological fracture of long bone (6) change in systemic therapy < 6 weeks 7% Breast, 33% Lung, 28% Prostate, 33% Others 85% Spine, 12% Ribs, 2% Other 20 Gy/5 fractions 135 68.0 29 10% Breast, 29% Lung, 30% Prostate, 30% Others 92% Spine, 6% Ribs, 2% Other Sande et al. 2009 [ 58 ] 7 8 Gy/1 fraction 85 67.2 39 (1) Karnofsky Performance Status > 40 (2) life expectancy > 6 weeks (1) previous irradiation in the same site (2) spinal cord compression (3) bone surgery 33% Prostate, 21% Breast, 14% Lung, 26% Other, 7% Unknown 9% Upper limbs, 13% Lower limb, 5% Cervical Spine, 14% Thoracic Spine, 16% Lumbar Spine, 2%Sacral Spine, 7% Thorax, 29% Pelvis 30 Gy/10 fractions 95 65.2 48 27% Prostata, 29% Breast, 14% Lung, 25% Other, 3% Unknown 11% Upper Limb, 13% Lower Limb, 6% Cervical Spine, 15% Thoracic Spine, 10% Lumbar Spine, 13% Thorax, 23% Pelvis

Pain medication consumption and survivorship

Pain medication consumption was not analysed in the 20Gy group because of lack of quantitative data. Administration of pain medication was notably reduced post-treatment in the 8Gy and 30Gy groups. No administration of pain medication improved to + 19.50% and + 21.83% in the 8Gy and 30Gy groups, respectively, while the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) was reduced to − 13.92% and − 8.65%. Overall consumption of weak narcotics was reduced to − 3.33% and − 8.50% in the 8Gy and 30Gy groups, respectively. The intake of strong narcotics was reduced to − 18.25% in the 8Gy group, while in the 30Gy group an increase to +3.80% was detected during last follow-up. The mean survival was 7.93 ± 1.87 months in the 8Gy group, 6.65 ± 2.62 months in the 20Gy group, and 8.71 ± 0.8 months in the 30Gy treatment group. Pain medication consumption and survivorship are shown in Table 2 . Table 2 Pre- and post-treatment medication assumption and survivorship Dose Patients ( n ) Mean survivorship ( months ) Pain medication assumption pre-therapy (%) Pain medication assumption post-therapy (%) Improvement (%) No use NSAID Weak narcotics Strong narcotics No use NSAID Weak narcotics Strong narcotics No use NSAID Weak narcotics Strong narcotics 8 Gy/1 fraction 1804 7.93 ± 1.9 7.50 ± 2.6 37.25 ± 20.6 24.33 ± 11.9 48.50 ± 24.3 27.00 ± 8.2 23.33 ± 10.8 21.00 ± 5.9 30.25 ± 27.6 + 19.50 - 13.92 - 3.33 - 18.25 20 Gy/5 fractions 769 6.65 ± 2.6 6.00 ± 2.8 49.50 ± 29.0 9.00 ± 3.7 67.00 ± 18.4 30 Gy/10 fractions 1022 8.71 ± 0.8 9.50 ± 3.5 31.00 ± 17.0 29.50 ± 2.1 30.00 ± 11.3 31.33 ± 8.1 22.35 ± 14.3 21.00 ± 7.4 33.80 ± 25.2 + 21.83 - 8.65 - 8.50 + 3.80

Network comparisons

The endpoint “no pain response” scored lower in the 8Gy group (LOR 3.39; SE 0.32; 95% CI 2.77 to 4.00; 95% PrI 2.63 to 4.14). The endpoint “complete pain remission” scored better in the 8Gy group (LOR -7.05; SE 0.29; 95% CI − 7.64 to − 6.47; 95% PrI − 8.14 to − 5.97). The 8Gy group demonstrated a better pain response to the therapy (LOR -5.88; SE 0.41; 95% CI − 6.69 to − 5.07; 95% PrI − 8.49 to − 3.26). The equation for global linearity via the Wald test detected no statically significant inconsistency (P > 0.5). Results of the network comparisons concerning pain control are shown in Fig. 2 . Fig. 2 Results of the network comparisons concerning pain control

The 8Gy group showed a lower rate of pathological fractures compared to the other groups (LOR 1.16; SE 0.65; 95% CI -0.11 to 2.43; 95% PrI -1.85 to 4.18). In the 8Gy group there was a significant lower rate of spinal cord compression compared to the other groups (LOR 1.31; SE 1.25; 95% CI − 1.14 to 3.76; 95% PrI − 4.02 to 6.64). In terms of reduced re-irradiation, the the 8Gy group detected reduced rate compared to the other cohorts (LOR 2.97; SE 0.58; 95% CI 1.83 to 4.11; 95% PrI 0.21 to 5.73). The equation for global linearity via the Wald test detected no statically significant inconsistency (P > 0.5). Results of the network comparisons concerning complications are shown in Fig. 3 . Fig. 3 Results of the network comparisons concerning complications.

Discussion

This Bayesian network meta-analysis showed that a single dose of 8Gy/one fraction radiation therapy is superior to multiple doses (20Gy and 30Gy) in terms of palliative control of pain in patients with skeletal metastases. Further, the 8Gy/one fraction protocol showed lower rate re-irradiation and complications, such as spinal cord compression and fractures. No differences in survivorship between the different dose patterns was detected.

The palliative 8Gy radiotherapy group performed better overall. Administration of pain medication was significantly lower in the 8Gy group compared to the 30Gy group. The network analysis reported a statistically significant lower risk of pathological fracture and spinal cord compression in the 8Gy group compared to the 20Gy and 30Gy groups. Partial and overall pain recurrence were remarkably lower in the 8Gy group compared to both 20Gy and 30Gy groups. Furthermore, the 8Gy group reported the lowest rate of non-response among patients. Concerning the endpoint of re-irradiation, no statistical significance was detected between the regimens studied in the present report. Of note, one single fractionation of radiation offers greater patient and caregiver convenience.

The seed-and-soil theory hypothesize that, given several cytokines and growth factors, bone tissue (the soil ) can provide an optimal field for the metastases (the seed ) [ 19 ]. The process that leads to metastatic growth is regulated by a signalling pathway between the microenvironment and tumoral cells [ 20 , 21 ]. This signalling induces growth of the tumour by interacting with the bone homeostasis. The first studies on tumour genesis demonstrated a “vicious cycle” between bone and tumour cells [ 21 ]. Tumour cells secrete cytokines, such as parathyroid hormone related protein (PTHrP), stimulating the release of RANKL from osteoblasts, promoting osteoclast bone resorption [ 11 , 22 ]. Bone resorption then releases growth factors, in turn promoting tumour growth, and the cycle continues. Modern anti-tumoral therapies are based on this rationale to directly inhibit osteoclasts [ 23 ]. However, some anti-tumour therapies such as hormone deprivation (anti-androgen or anti-oestrogen) or corticosteroids exert a negative impact on bone quality, resulting in osteoporosis [ 24 ]. Bisphosphonates, such as zoledronate, bind hydroxyapatite and interact with osteoclasts, promoting apoptosis, thus inhibiting bone resorption [ 25 ]. Bisphosphonates delay the advance of existing bone metastasis and reduce the risk of developing new bony lesions in patients with breast cancer and multiple myeloma [ 26 , 27 ]. Bisphosphonates also reduce skeletal complications in hormone-refractory prostate cancer [ 28 ], non-small cell lung cancer, and other urologic malignancies [ 29 , 30 ]. Their use is recommended in patients affected by breast cancer with signs of bone metastasis [ 31 ]. Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody that inhibits RANKL activity, a ligand in the signalling pathway that regulates osteoclast differentiation and activation. Thus, there is widespread interest in it for bone metastasis treatment, particularly when zoledronate is no longer effective [ 32 ]. Furthermore, Denosumab does not accumulate in bone, allowing quick reversal after its suspension [ 32 ]. However, the considerably increased risk of jaw osteonecrosis represents a major complication of bisphosphonates [ 33 ]. External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) is a common alternative treatment options for pain in uncomplicated bone metastases [ 16 ]. Chow et al. [ 13 ] reported partial pain relief in 50% to 80% of patients with bone metastasis receiving EBRT. Furthermore, complete relief from metastatic bone pain was reported by almost 30% of patients [ 13 ]. Interestingly, the cause of pain in bone metastases is still unknown [ 34 ]. Radiation destroys tumour cells, promoting bone reparation, but the rapid pain relief poses a question on the true source of bone pain. Hoskin et al. [ 35 ] found a possible explanation of the reported pain relief after radiotherapy, hypothesising that the source of pain is intrinsic to the bone (osteoclasts) rather than the tumour. This partially explains the pain relief observed even with bisphosphonate treatment, as they directly act on the osteoclasts.

Regarding surgical intervention, an impending or frank pathological fracture from bone metastases is a classical indication for internal fixation. Surgery is also indicated when metastases cause spinal cord involvement or peripheral nerve compression. Two retrospective cohort studies evaluated the outcome of prophylactic surgical fixation of impending fractures [ 36 , 37 ]. Fixation of impending fractures leads to a reduction of total blood loss, shorter hospitalization, improved function, and longer survival compared to surgical fixation of pathological fractures [ 36 , 37 ]. The Mirels score evaluates the potential necessity for prophylactic surgery [ 38 ]. Another way to evaluate the potential need for prophylactic surgery is the assessment of bone with CT scan [ 39 ]. This technique compares the structural rigidity of the bone matrix of the contralateral side and has shown superior sensitivity and specificity compared to Mirels criteria [ 39 ]. Surgical outcomes and survival, however, depend strictly on the preoperative health of a patient [ 40 ]. The Goldman classification is useful to evaluate patient pre-operative health status [ 41 ]. This score assesses the surgical risk based on cardiac, respiratory, and other secondary factors. Analysing death prognostic factors, Nathan et al. [ 42 ] found that primary diagnosis, use of systemic therapy, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, number of bone metastases, presence of visceral metastases, and serum haemoglobin, albumin, and lymphocyte counts were significant in predicting survival.

Major points of strength of this Bayesian network meta-analysis are the comprehensive nature of the literature search and the strict eligibility criteria for study inclusion. Several different palliative fractionation schedules and doses (e.g. 12Gy, 15Gy, 16Gy in one fraction, 22.5Gy in 5 fractions, 24Gy in 6 fractions, 40Gy in 20 fractions, and many other) have been described [ 43 ]. Lack of data or low level of evidence, however, did not allow inclusion of some studies in the present meta-analysis. Thereby, only the most commonly used dose patterns were compared. The small number of RCTs included in this study represents the most important limitation. Furthermore, this reflects the lack of evidence and consensus on this topic. Further high-quality studies are required to improve our current understanding in this field. Other important limitations are the lack of data and the heterogeneous eligibility criteria among the studies included. This increases publication bias, which negatively influences our recommendation. Given the lack of quantitative data, it was not possible to analyse the different anatomical districs (spine, lower and upper limb) separately. Given these limitations, data from this study must be interpreted with caution.

Conclusion

Palliative 8Gy/single fraction radiotherapy for skeletal metastases showed superior results compared to the other regimens. Consumption of pain medication was notably lower in the 8Gy group compared to the 30Gy group. The 8Gy/single fraction demonstrated superiority to the other multiple dose patterns (20Gy and 30Gy) in controlling pain. Pathological fractures and spinal cord compressions occurred significantly less often in the 8Gy group compared to 20Gy and 30Gy groups, along with a reduce rate of re-irradiation. Furthermore, the 8Gy group reported the lowest rate of non-response among patients. No differences in survivorship among the dose patterns was detected.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. No external source of funding was used.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study informed consent is not required.

References

1. Migliorini F Maffulli N Trivellas A Eschweiler J Tingart M Driessen A Bone metastases: a comprehensive review of the literature Mol Biol Rep 2020 10.1007/s11033-020-05684-0 32749632

2. Berenson JR Rosen LS Howell A Porter L Coleman RE Morley W Dreicer R Kuross SA Lipton A Seaman JJ Zoledronic acid reduces skeletal-related events in patients with osteolytic metastases Cancer 2001 91 7 1191 1200 10.1002/1097-0142(20010401)91:7<1191::aid-cncr1119>3.0.co;2-0 11283917

3. Coleman RE Metastatic bone disease: clinical features, pathophysiology and treatment strategies Cancer Treat Rev 2001 27 3 165 176 10.1053/ctrv.2000.0210 11417967

4. Selvaggi G Scagliotti GV Management of bone metastases in cancer: a review Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2005 56 3 365 378 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2005.03.011 15978828

5. Macedo F Ladeira K Pinho F Saraiva N Bonito N Pinto L Goncalves F Bone Metastases: An Overview Oncol Rev 2017 11 1 321 10.4081/oncol.2017.321 28584570 PMC5444408

6. Coleman RE Skeletal complications of malignancy Cancer 1997 80 8 Suppl 1588 1594 10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19971015)80:8+<1588::aid-cncr9>3.3.co;2-z 9362426

7. Coleman RE Clinical features of metastatic bone disease and risk of skeletal morbidity Clin Cancer Res 2006 12 20 Pt 2 6243s 6249s 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-0931 17062708

8. Healey JH Turnbull AD Miedema B Lane JM Acrometastases. A study of twenty-nine patients with osseous involvement of the hands and feet J Bone Joint Surg Am 1986 68 5 743 746 10.2106/00004623-198668050-00017 3459730

9. Li S Peng Y Weinhandl ED Blaes AH Cetin K Chia VM Stryker S Pinzone JJ Acquavella JF Arneson TJ Estimated number of prevalent cases of metastatic bone disease in the US adult population Clin Epidemiol 2012 4 87 93 10.2147/CLEP.S28339 22570568 PMC3345874

10. Jemal A Bray F Center MM Ferlay J Ward E Forman D Global cancer statistics CA Cancer J Clin 2011 61 2 69 90 10.3322/caac.20107 21296855

11. Yoneda T Sasaki A Mundy GR Osteolytic bone metastasis in breast cancer Breast Cancer Res Treat 1994 32 1 73 84 10.1007/BF00666208 7819589

12. Spencer K Parrish R Barton R Henry A Palliative radiotherapy BMJ 2018 360 k821 10.1136/bmj.k821 29572337 PMC5865075

13. Chow E Harris K Fan G Tsao M Sze WM Palliative radiotherapy trials for bone metastases: a systematic review J Clin Oncol 2007 25 11 1423 1436 10.1200/JCO.2006.09.5281 17416863

14. Fairchild A Barnes E Ghosh S Ben-Josef E Roos D Hartsell W Holt T Wu J Janjan N Chow E International patterns of practice in palliative radiotherapy for painful bone metastases: evidence-based practice? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009 75 5 1501 1510 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.12.084 19464820

15. De Felice F Piccioli A Musio D Tombolini V The role of radiation therapy in bone metastases management Oncotarget 2017 8 15 25691 25699 10.18632/oncotarget.14823 28148890 PMC5421962

16. Lutz S Berk L Chang E Chow E Hahn C Hoskin P Howell D Konski A Kachnic L Lo S Sahgal A Silverman L von Gunten C Mendel E Vassil A Bruner DW Hartsell W American Society for Radiation O Palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases: an ASTRO evidence-based guideline Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011 79 4 965 976 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.11.026 21277118

17. Hutton B Salanti G Caldwell DM Chaimani A Schmid CH Cameron C Ioannidis JP Straus S Thorlund K Jansen JP Mulrow C Catala-Lopez F Gotzsche PC Dickersin K Boutron I Altman DG Moher D The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations Ann Intern Med 2015 162 11 777 784 10.7326/M14-2385 26030634

18. Howick J CI GP, Greenhalgh T, Heneghan C, Liberati A, Moschetti I, Phillips B, Thornton H, Goddard O, Hodgkinson M The 2011 Oxford Levels of Evidence. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine 2011

19. Papotti M Kalebic T Volante M Chiusa L Bacillo E Cappia S Lausi P Novello S Borasio P Scagliotti GV Bone sialoprotein is predictive of bone metastases in resectable non-small-cell lung cancer: a retrospective case-control study J Clin Oncol 2006 24 30 4818 4824 10.1200/JCO.2006.06.1952 17050866

20. Guise TA Mundy GR Cancer and bone Endocr Rev 1998 19 1 18 54 10.1210/edrv.19.1.0323 9494779

21. Johnson RW Nguyen MP Padalecki SS Grubbs BG Merkel AR Oyajobi BO Matrisian LM Mundy GR Sterling JA TGF-beta promotion of Gli2-induced expression of parathyroid hormone-related protein, an important osteolytic factor in bone metastasis, is independent of canonical Hedgehog signaling Cancer Res 2011 71 3 822 831 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-2993 21189326 PMC3077118

22. Lewis CE Pollard JW Distinct role of macrophages in different tumor microenvironments Cancer Res 2006 66 2 605 612 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-4005 16423985

23. Mundy GR Metastasis to bone: causes, consequences and therapeutic opportunities Nat Rev Cancer 2002 2 8 584 593 10.1038/nrc867 12154351

24. Coleman R Body JJ Aapro M Hadji P Herrstedt J Gruoup ECW Bone health in cancer patients: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines Ann Oncol 2014 25 3 iii124 137 10.1093/annonc/mdu103 24782453

25. Russell RG Bisphosphonates: the first 40 years Bone 2011 49 1 2 19 10.1016/j.bone.2011.04.022 21555003

26. McCloskey EV MacLennan IC Drayson MT Chapman C Dunn J Kanis JA A randomized trial of the effect of clodronate on skeletal morbidity in multiple myeloma. MRC Working Party on Leukaemia in Adults Br J Haematol 1998 100 2 317 325 10.1046/j.1365-2141.1998.00567.x 9488619

27. Powles T Paterson S Kanis JA McCloskey E Ashley S Tidy A Rosenqvist K Smith I Ottestad L Legault S Pajunen M Nevantaus A Mannisto E Suovuori A Atula S Nevalainen J Pylkkanen L Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of clodronate in patients with primary operable breast cancer J Clin Oncol 2002 20 15 3219 3224 10.1200/JCO.2002.11.080 12149294

28. Saad F Gleason DM Murray R Tchekmedyian S Venner P Lacombe L Chin JL Vinholes JJ Goas JA Chen B Zoledronic Acid Prostate Cancer Study G A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of zoledronic acid in patients with hormone-refractory metastatic prostate carcinoma J Natl Cancer Inst 2002 94 19 1458 1468 10.1093/jnci/94.19.1458 12359855

29. Rosen LS Gordon D Tchekmedyian S Yanagihara R Hirsh V Krzakowski M Pawlicki M de Souza P Zheng M Urbanowitz G Reitsma D Seaman JJ Zoledronic acid versus placebo in the treatment of skeletal metastases in patients with lung cancer and other solid tumors: a phase III, double-blind, randomized trial–the Zoledronic Acid Lung Cancer and Other Solid Tumors Study Group J Clin Oncol 2003 21 16 3150 3157 10.1200/JCO.2003.04.105 12915606

30. Rosen LS Gordon D Kaminski M Howell A Belch A Mackey J Apffelstaedt J Hussein MA Coleman RE Reitsma DJ Chen BL Seaman JJ Long-term efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid compared with pamidronate disodium in the treatment of skeletal complications in patients with advanced multiple myeloma or breast carcinoma: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, comparative trial Cancer 2003 98 8 1735 1744 10.1002/cncr.11701 14534891

31. Hillner BE Ingle JN Chlebowski RT Gralow J Yee GC Janjan NA Cauley JA Blumenstein BA Albain KS Lipton A Brown S American Society of Clinical Oncology 2003 update on the role of bisphosphonates and bone health issues in women with breast cancer J Clin Oncol 2003 21 21 4042 4057 10.1200/JCO.2003.08.017 12963702

32. Yee AJ Raje NS Denosumab, a RANK ligand inhibitor, for the management of bone loss in cancer patients Clin Interv Aging 2012 7 331 338 10.2147/CIA.S14566 22977302 PMC3437759

33. Migliorati CA Epstein JB Abt E Berenson JR Osteonecrosis of the jaw and bisphosphonates in cancer: a narrative review Nat Rev Endocrinol 2011 7 1 34 42 10.1038/nrendo.2010.195 21079615

34. Maisano R Pergolizzi S Cascinu S Novel therapeutic approaches to cancer patients with bone metastasis Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2001 40 3 239 250 10.1016/S1040-8428(01)00092-0 11738947

35. Hoskin PJ Stratford MR Folkes LK Regan J Yarnold JR Effect of local radiotherapy for bone pain on urinary markers of osteoclast activity Lancet 2000 355 9213 1428 1429 10.1016/s0140-6736(00)02144-9 10791529

36. Ward WG Holsenbeck S Dorey FJ Spang J Howe D Metastatic disease of the femur: surgical treatment Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003 415 S230 244 10.1097/01.blo.0000093849.72468.82 14600615

37. Katzer A Meenen NM Grabbe F Rueger JM Surgery of skeletal metastases Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2002 122 5 251 258 10.1007/s00402-001-0359-2 12070642

38. Mirels H Metastatic disease in long bones. A proposed scoring system for diagnosing impending pathologic fractures Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989 249 256 264 2684463

39. Snyder BD Hauser-Kara DA Hipp JA Zurakowski D Hecht AC Gebhardt MC Predicting fracture through benign skeletal lesions with quantitative computed tomography J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006 88 1 55 70 10.2106/JBJS.D.02600 16391250

40. Cheung FH The practicing orthopedic surgeon's guide to managing long bone metastases Orthop Clin North Am 2014 45 1 109 119 10.1016/j.ocl.2013.09.003 24267212

41. Goldman L Caldera DL Nussbaum SR Southwick FS Krogstad D Murray B Burke DS O'Malley TA Goroll AH Caplan CH Nolan J Carabello B Slater EE Multifactorial index of cardiac risk in noncardiac surgical procedures N Engl J Med 1977 297 16 845 850 10.1056/NEJM197710202971601 904659

42. Nathan SS Healey JH Mellano D Hoang B Lewis I Morris CD Athanasian EA Boland PJ Survival in patients operated on for pathologic fracture: implications for end-of-life orthopedic care J Clin Oncol 2005 23 25 6072 6082 10.1200/JCO.2005.08.104 16135474

43. Sze WM Shelley M Held I Mason M Palliation of metastatic bone pain: single fraction versus multifraction radiotherapy - a systematic review of the randomised trials Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004 10.1002/14651858.CD004721 15106258 PMC6599833

44. Amouzegar-Hashemi F Behrouzi H Kazemian A Zarpak B Haddad P Single versus multiple fractions of palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases: a randomized clinical trial in Iranian patients Curr Oncol 2008 15 3 151 10.3747/co.v15i3.203 18596887 PMC2442760

45. 8 Gy single fraction radiotherapy for the treatment of metastatic skeletal pain: randomised comparison with a multifraction schedule over 12 months of patient follow-up. Bone Pain Trial Working Party (1999). Radiother Oncol 52(2):111-121 10577696

46. Foro Arnalot P Fontanals AV Galceran JC Lynd F Latiesas XS de Dios NR Castillejo AR Bassols ML Galan JL Conejo IM Lopez MA Randomized clinical trial with two palliative radiotherapy regimens in painful bone metastases: 30 Gy in 10 fractions compared with 8 Gy in single fraction Radiother Oncol 2008 89 2 150 155 10.1016/j.radonc.2008.05.018 18556080

47. Gutierrez Bayard L Salas Buzon Mdel C Angulo Pain E de Ingunza Baron L Radiation therapy for the management of painful bone metastases: Results from a randomized trial Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2014 19 6 405 411 10.1016/j.rpor.2014.04.009 25337414 PMC4201774

48. Hartsell WF Scott CB Bruner DW Scarantino CW Ivker RA Roach M 3rd Suh JH Demas WF Movsas B Petersen IA Konski AA Cleeland CS Janjan NA DeSilvio M Randomized trial of short- versus long-course radiotherapy for palliation of painful bone metastases J Natl Cancer Inst 2005 97 11 798 804 10.1093/jnci/dji139 15928300

49. Kaasa S Brenne E Lund JA Fayers P Falkmer U Holmberg M Lagerlund M Bruland O Prospective randomised multicenter trial on single fraction radiotherapy (8 Gy x 1) versus multiple fractions (3 Gy x 10) in the treatment of painful bone metastases Radiother Oncol 2006 79 3 278 284 10.1016/j.radonc.2006.05.006 16793154

50. Kagei K Suzuki K Shirato H Nambu T Yoshikawa H Irie G A randomized trial of single and multifraction radiation therapy for bone metastasis: a preliminary report Gan No Rinsho 1990 36 15 2553 2558 1702476

51. Kirkbride PWP Panzarella T Aslanidis J McKenzie M Sun A A randomised trial comparing the efficacy of a single radiaton fraction with fractionated radiation therapy in the palliation of skeletal metastases Int J Rad Onc Biol Phys 2000 48 185 185 10.1016/S0360-3016(00)80164-9

52. Koswig S Budach V Remineralization and pain relief in bone metastases after after different radiotherapy fractions (10 times 3 Gy vs. 1 time 8 Gy). A prospective study Strahlenther Onkol 1999 175 10 500 508 10.1007/s000660050061 10554645

53. Loblaw DA Wu JS Kirkbride P Panzarella T Smith K Aslanidis J Warde P Pain flare in patients with bone metastases after palliative radiotherapy–a nested randomized control trial Support Care Cancer 2007 15 4 451 455 10.1007/s00520-006-0166-y 17093912

54. Majumder D Chatterjee D Bandyopadhyay A Mallick SK Sarkar SK Majumdar A Single Fraction versus Multiple Fraction Radiotherapy for Palliation of Painful Vertebral Bone Metastases: A Prospective Study Indian J Palliat Care 2012 18 3 202 206 10.4103/0973-1075.105691 23440009 PMC3573475

55. Nielsena OSBS Sandbergc E Gadebergd CG Timothye AR Randomized trial of single dose versus fractionated palliative radiotherapy of bone metastases Rad Onc 1998 47 3 233 240 10.1016/S0167-8140(98)00011-5 9681885

56. Price P Hoskin PJ Easton D Austin D Palmer SG Yarnold JR Prospective randomised trial of single and multifraction radiotherapy schedules in the treatment of painful bony metastases Radiother Oncol 1986 6 4 247 255 10.1016/s0167-8140(86)80191-8 3775071

57. Roos DE Turner SL O'Brien PC Smith JG Spry NA Burmeister BH Hoskin PJ Ball DL Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group T Randomized trial of 8 Gy in 1 versus 20 Gy in 5 fractions of radiotherapy for neuropathic pain due to bone metastases (Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group, TROG 9605) Radiother Oncol 2005 75 1 54 63 10.1016/j.radonc.2004.09.017 15878101

58. Sande TA Ruenes R Lund JA Bruland OS Hornslien K Bremnes R Kaasa S Long-term follow-up of cancer patients receiving radiotherapy for bone metastases: results from a randomised multicentre trial Radiother Oncol 2009 91 2 261 266 10.1016/j.radonc.2009.02.014 19307034