JIPOAd
ESID
TCR
  • Users Online: 139
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 
Table of Contents
GUIDELINE AND CONSENSUS
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 3  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 34-44

Highlights on the management of oligometastatic disease


1 Department of Oncology, King Abdulaziz Medical City; King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
2 King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
3 Department of Medicine, King Saud University Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
4 Department of Radiation Oncology, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
5 Al Baha University, Al Baha, Saudi Arabia
6 Department of Radiation Oncology, King Fahad Specialist Hospital, Dammam, Saudi Arabia
7 Radiation Oncology Unit, John Hopkins Aramco Healthcare, Dharan, Saudi Arabia

Date of Submission26-Jun-2019
Date of Acceptance19-Dec-2019
Date of Web Publication21-Feb-2020

Correspondence Address:
Salem M Alshehri
Department of Oncology, King Abdulaziz Medical City, P. O. Box: 22490, Riyadh 11426
Saudi Arabia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/JIPO.JIPO_24_19

Get Permissions

  Abstract 


Purpose: The understanding of oligometastatic disease (OMD) is rapidly evolving and with this comes the ability to utilize a number of modalities that excel in the localized control of disease. It has been identified that there are no clear guidelines based on high-level evidence to standardized approaches toward the management of OMD. These highlights have been developed to provide a road map for all health-care professionals who are involved in the management of OMD to support standardized patient care. Methods: The Saudi Lung Cancer Guidelines Committee is a part of the Saudi Lung Cancer Association which, in turn, is part of the Saudi Thoracic Society. Considering that lung cancer constitutes a major proportion of OMD prevalence, the committee took the initiative to develop national highlights to support the management of OMD within Saudi Arabia. The committee members are national clinical leaders who collaborated with international expertise to establish these highlights to serve as a general clinical pathway in the management of OMD. Results: Standardization of the indications to diagnose oligometastases and patient selection criteria including ineligibility criteria for treatment are the basis of the highlights. Treatment approaches including surgical and the variety of radiotherapeutical options are discussed in relation to specific oligometastatic sites. Acceptable measurements for response to treatment and the future for the treatment of OMD conclude the development of the highlights. Conclusion: These are the first national highlights addressing this important disease in oncology. The implementation of these highlights as guidelines requires a robust multidisciplinary team and access to specific technology and expertise. These highlights are based on the most recent findings within the literature but will require repeated review and updating due to this rapidly evolving field in disease management.

Keywords: Oligometastases, stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy, stereotactic body radiotherapy


How to cite this article:
Alshehri SM, Alkattan K, Abdelwarith A, Alhussain H, Shaker S, Alghamdi M, Alassaf H, Albargawi A, Naimi MA, Alomair A, Althaqfi S, Alhebshi A, Alothman M, Jazieh A. Highlights on the management of oligometastatic disease. J Immunother Precis Oncol 2020;3:34-44

How to cite this URL:
Alshehri SM, Alkattan K, Abdelwarith A, Alhussain H, Shaker S, Alghamdi M, Alassaf H, Albargawi A, Naimi MA, Alomair A, Althaqfi S, Alhebshi A, Alothman M, Jazieh A. Highlights on the management of oligometastatic disease. J Immunother Precis Oncol [serial online] 2020 [cited 2020 Apr 1];3:34-44. Available from: http://www.jipoonline.org/text.asp?2020/3/1/34/277826




  Introduction Top


Overall, metastatic malignancies are associated with a poor prognosis, where systemic chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and molecular targeted therapy are the standards of treatment. Oligometastatic status has an increasing significance in the selection in appropriate treatment strategies available for metastatic disease. Immunotherapy and radiation therapy namely stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) have proven in literature to have a synergistic effect on cancer cells.[1],[2],[3]

The biologic basis for the clinical discrepancy between widespread and oligometastatic disease (OMD) may include different primary tumor microenvironments, fitness of the migrant cancer cells, and the hospitability of host sites.[4] Tumor biology likely differs for oligometastatic versus widely metastatic disease, with variation in genetic signatures and expression profiles.[5],[6]

The concept of OMD was introduced by Hellman and Weichselbaum in 1995 to describe a state in which the extent of metastases is limited in number and location, for which a curative therapeutic strategy may be indicated.[7] Oligometastases are typically defined as a limited number of metastases that are not rapidly evolving and can be contained by aggressive management. The number of limited metastatic sites discussed within the literature is either one to three metastatic sites or five and fewer metastases.[8] Knowing that up 40%–55% of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients present with distant metastases, 70% of them had up to two metastatic lesions and 50% had three or fewer metastatic sites.[9] In a single retrospective study, 26% of patients with metastatic lung cancer had five or fewer metastatic lesions.[10] Common primary tumor sites for subsequent development of OMD include NSCLC, colorectal cancer, breast, prostate, soft-tissue sarcoma, and renal cell carcinoma. Common sites of extracranial oligometastases include lung, liver, bone, adrenals, and lymph nodes.

The defined OMD categories are:[11]

  • Synchronous: Initially presented at diagnosis
  • Metachronous or oligo-recurrence: Recurring metastatic site(s) after initial primary treatment
  • Oligoprogressive: Disease progression at few metastatic sites, while response or stable disease (SD) at other sites.


The challenge in the management of OMD is distant recurrence and if local recurrence occurs, it will mostly take a place within the first 2 years. Identifying OMD depends on the reliability of advanced diagnostic imaging to accurately point out the number of metastatic sites. Advanced imaging such as positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET/CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have enhanced the ability to assess patients for metastatic disease.

Local consolidative therapy for selected oligometastatic NSCLC has shown to prolong overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in comparison to maintenance therapy or observation.[12],[13] Aggressive local treatment for oligometastases includes brain, pulmonary, and hepatic metastasectomy; stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS); stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), also known as SABR; radiofrequency ablation; and cryoablation, either alone or combined with systemic chemotherapy. The multiple treatment modalities available have been heavily researched over a significant period of time. It is important to consider that the response and outcome of OMD to local treatment modalities is influenced by the biology of the primary tumor type.

SBRT is defined as the administration of highly conformal and image-guided external beam radiotherapy in an accurate and precise way, delivered in limited number of fractions (< 5).[14] With the advance in technology, SBRT has become feasible and safe to apply large “ablative” doses of radiation therapy in very few treatments, which makes this practical technique a widely adopted. This subject is an active area for ongoing worldwide clinical trials which may change the current practice of treating oligometastases.

In patients with metastatic NSCLC, retrospective and prospective studies have demonstrated improved outcomes for patients who received treatment to all known metastases.[15],[16],[17],[18],[19]

OMD treatment in prostate cancer has evolved; the Oriole trial demonstrated prolonged PFS in the SABR arm in comparison to the observation arm.[20]

Population-based analysis has demonstrated modest improvements in OS in metastatic breast cancer when treating patients with combination chemotherapy, reporting outcomes in over 1500 women at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center.[17] Extended PFS was demonstrated in small number of patients with 3.1% and 1.6% at 5 and 15 years, respectively.[17] This prolonged PFS of this subset of patients who received standard systemic treatment suggests that interventions to cure or control OMD may further increase this small proportion of long-term survivors, supporting local consolidation therapy approaches in this setting. In 2015, in an international survey among more than 1000 radiation oncologists, 61% reported using SBRT to treat oligometastases.[21]

Recently, the (SABR-COMET) trial has shown that SABR treatment is associated with an improvement of OS in OMD.[22]

Highlight 1: Oligometastases: Indications and patient selection for localized therapy

Since the 1960s, multiple expert groups proposed indications for the surgical resection of metastatic tumors. The original criteria proposed by Thomford et al. in 1965 are still utilized in clinical practice in an expanded format.[23]

Currently, the criteria include:[23]

  • Controlled primary malignancy
  • No evidence of extrathoracic progressive metastases
  • All tumors are resectable, with adequate remaining pulmonary reserve
  • No available alternative local treatment modality with a lower morbidity risk.


Pearls in oligometastatic disease

  • Metastatic lesion(s) or site(s) of disease count individually
  • Only active lesion(s) or site(s) of disease count
  • Metastatic lesion(s) is a synonym to metastatic site(s); both terms are reported in literature[12],[13],[19],[24]
  • Number of organs involved cannot be solely a determinant factor.[25]


Conditions for patient ineligibility

Any patient who has one of the following conditions is NOT an ideal candidate for curative SBRT or aggressive local treatment, and an alternative treatment modality is recommended for management (e.g., systemic treatment or palliative treatment):[26],[27]

  • Primary tumor progression (breast, prostate, or lung)
  • Indistinct borders of metastatic lesion(s)
  • Initial palliative radiotherapy to same metastatic site. Whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) is an exception
  • Complete response (CR) to systemic treatment (i.e. no existing target)
  • Malignant pleural effusion
  • Spinal cord compression (clinically or radiologically)
  • Femoral bone metastases
  • Previously irradiated targets within 3 cm[28]
  • Pregnant or lactating women
  • Severe, active comorbidity, for example, unstable angina and/or congestive heart failure requiring hospitalization within the last 6 months; acute bacterial or fungal infection requiring intravenous antibiotics; respiratory illness requiring hospitalization; and severe hepatic disease, defined as a diagnosis of Child–Pugh Class B or C hepatic disease
  • HIV-positive patients with CD4 count < 200 cells/μL
  • End-stage kidney disease.


Highlight 2: Treatment approaches

Stereotactic body radiotherapy recommendations

It is highly recommended that the decision-making process for SBRT as an aggressive local treatment modality follows a dedicated workflow, which requires the following:[26],[27]

  • Evaluation by a multidisciplinary tumor board including but not limited to a radiation oncologist, medical oncologist, thoracic surgeon, neurosurgeon, hepatobiliary surgeon, pathologist, and radiologist
  • Detailed history and physical examination
  • Pathology confirmation of malignancy
  • A precise assessment of Zubrod/Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status ≤ 2 within planned treatment time, i.e. Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) of > 60%
  • Age ≥ 18 years old
  • Controlled primary tumor.
  • Imaging workup to document oligometastatic status of the disease:


    • CT scans of chest, abdomen, and pelvis; CT/MRI brain; as well as whole-body PET/CT to confirm oligometastatic status
    • High-definition local imaging by MRI to be utilized for image fusion and target delineation purposes.


  • Informed consent is required prior to treatment
  • Negative serum/urine pregnancy test within 14 days for females of childbearing age.
  • Laboratory workup to be obtained, to assure adequate bone marrow, renal, and liver function/reserves including:


    • Complete blood count (CBC)/differential defined as follows: (not absolute contraindication)
    • Absolute neutrophil count ≥ 500 cells/mm3
    • Platelets ≥ 50,000/mm3
    • Hemoglobin ≥ 8.0 g/dl
    • Liver enzymes are < 3X (upper normal limits) for liver metastases
    • Liver functions must be documented
    • Adequate renal functions.


  • HIV-positive patients are candidates for SBRT provided they are under treatment with highly active antiretroviral therapy and have a CD4 count ≥ 200 cells/μl.


Surgical recommendations: Resection of limited metastases

There is surgical data demonstrating long-term disease control and survival in patients treated with metastasectomy from sarcoma and breast cancer among other primary tumors. Patients presenting with spinal cord compression from solid tumors who undergo surgical decompression in addition to radiation have improved ambulatory function, continence, and survival compared to radiation monotherapy.[29],[30],[31]

Fong et al. published their experience with metastasectomy of hepatic oligometastases on 456 patients with colorectal cancer treated between 1985 and 1991.[32] The treatment was well tolerated with low mortality and a postresection median survival of 46 months and 38% with a 5-year survival. A later publication showed that 22% of these patients achieved 10-year survival and were effectively cured of their disease.[33] Subsequent studies led to hepatic resection for oligometastases from colorectal cancer becoming the standard of care in the absence of a prospective clinical trial in an era prior to oxaliplatin and irinotecan chemotherapy backbones.[34] This provides a preliminary evidence base to suggest that a subset of patients with limited metastatic disease may be curable with localized treatment beyond chemotherapy.

In the pre-SBRT era, the treatment with a curative intent for metastatic tumors in the lung was pulmonary metastasectomy. Pulmonary metastasectomy would be appropriate for only 15%–25% of patients with pulmonary metastases.[35] A systematic review and meta-analysis showed that OS ranged from 27% to 68% after pulmonary metastasectomy for metastatic colorectal cancers.[36] Risk factors for poor OS included short disease-free interval, multiple lesions, and elevated prethoracotomy carcinoembryonic antigen.[37]

Recommendations for preoperative evaluation:

  • Detailed history and physical examination
  • Assessment of respiratory symptoms
  • Appropriate imaging modality to assess extrathoracic metastases
  • High-quality imaging to assess number and location of pulmonary metastases and assist in surgical planning
  • Thorough functional assessment including questioning of the patient and family about the capabilities of completing activities of daily living
  • Pulmonary function testing is a crucial component to the preoperative evaluation of those who are undergoing an anatomic resection of metastatic lesions.


The optimum history taking starts with an assessment of respiratory symptoms, although up to 90% of patients with pulmonary metastases will be asymptomatic due to the nonobstructing peripheral nature of their disease.[38] Postoperative diffusion capacity (diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide) and forced expiratory volume at 1 second must be determined, as they are important predictors of operative risk, postoperative complications, and mortality. Sublobar resection (either wedge resection or segmentectomy) is most often used for patients undergoing metastasectomy; consideration must be given to the potential cumulative parenchymal loss in the setting of multiple lesions. Patients who have been subjected to three or more surgical resections are at risk of pulmonary functional losses similar to those undergoing a lobectomy.[35] Each of the Expanded Thomford criteria must be met before offering surgery. The Thomford criteria do not take into account the prognosis, whereas the concept of oligometastases includes the prognosis of possible cure.

In research studies, pulmonary metastasectomy has been primarily evaluated by OS; there are additional prognostic factors to consider: tumor doubling time, disease-free interval, and number and distribution of pulmonary metastases.[39] OS represents the entire duration of various treatments, including local ablation, and does not depend on cure but rather on the length of time that the patients are alive. For patients with multiple metastases, there is no consensus to define how many lesions are too many. Achieving complete resection with adequate pulmonary reserve is vital; therefore, adequate pulmonary reserve mandates the evaluation of the number of nodules, consideration of the locations, and estimation of the postoperative pulmonary function.

Five-year survival rates are variable depending on the number of metastatic lung lesions with a single metastatic focus (43% 5-year survival), while it is 34% with those with two to three metastases, it is 27% for patients with three or more metastases.[39] The role of mediastinoscopy is still arguable, hence the impact of nodal disease was most likely related to the histology of the primary malignancy.[39],[40] Currently, if a lesion can be completely cleared while allowing for adequate remaining function, then resection can be pursued even if the lesions are numerous, bilateral, or if anatomic resection such as segmentectomy or lobectomy is required. In the case of potential pneumonectomy, a thorough discussion of alternative therapies, in a multidisciplinary setting, is mandated prior to embarking upon surgery. The indication for pulmonary metastasectomy to prolong OS remains an unresolved issue that necessarily requires a randomized prospective study, but in the era of quick-paced drug development, it is considered almost impossible to identify the significance of the local therapy in any analysis of OS.

In conclusion, the criteria prior to proceed for pulmonary metastasectomy would be:

  • Confirmed number of metastatic lesions by imaging CT scans and PET-CT
  • Adequate pulmonary function test
  • Good Performance Status (PS) < 2
  • Decision to be undertaken by multidisciplinary team
  • Consider combining several local therapy modalities, for example, surgery and SBRT
  • Treatment-naïve patients with mutation-driven disease should consider initial systemic treatment.


Highlight 3: Classification of oligometastases by site

Intracranial oligometastases

Patients are eligible for aggressive local therapy if they meet all of the following criteria:

  • Favorable prognosis using preferably grade point average score, if not then Recursive Partitioning Analysis: Classes I and II[41],[42]
  • Good PS using ECOG ≤ 2 or KPS >70%
  • Stable, controlled, primary disease (recent restaging is required)
  • Lymphoma and germ cell tumors are not eligible for SRS.


Criteria for the number and size of metastases are described below:

Solitary brain metastasis

There is strong evidence within the literature supporting local treatment for limited metastatic disease in the context of intracranial metastases. Randomized trials have demonstrated improvements in disease control and OS for patients treated with surgical resection or SRS in addition to WBRT.[43],[44]

Surgical resection is also indicated for large and/or symptomatic brain metastasis as it provides immediate relief compared to radiotherapy unless surgery cannot be performed due to patient- or disease-related issues.

Postoperative management would be viewed according to the following points:

  • Following surgery for solitary brain metastases, local stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) (1–5 fractions) to tumor bed is the standard of care[45]
  • For patients with solitary brain metastasis who cannot undergo or refuse surgery, SRS using a single fraction is indicated for tumor sizes up to 4 cm and fractionated SRT (up to 5 fractions) is preferred for tumors >4 cm or tumors located at eloquent areas in the brain[46]
  • WBRT for intact or resected solitary brain metastasis has fallen out of favor given the negative impact on cognitive functions without improvement of OS[47]
  • Doses and target volumes for single-fraction SRS can be tailored as per the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9508.[44]


WBRT is preserved for the following circumstances:

  • Presence of spread pattern leptomeningeal disease
  • Presence of multiple metastatic lesions (number is variable from center to center)
  • Specific pathology (hematologic malignancy, germ cell tumors, small cell lung cancer [SCLC], and lymphoma).


Multiple brain metastases

Management of multiple brain metastases would be viewed according to the following points:

Workup:

  • Patients with intracranial metastases ideally simulated with stereotactic frame
  • It is recommended that all patients with intracranial metastases have primary MRI planning with thin cuts (1–2 mm) which will be co-registered with the planning of thin-cut CT (not > 2 mm).


Treatment:

  • Surgery is indicated for resectable symptomatic brain metastasis even in the presence of multiple other metastases which can be treated with SRS as a primary treatment or SRS as postoperatively
  • SRS (single fraction) is indicated for brain metastases up to four lesions in number and up to 4 cm in size
  • Treating more than four lesions with SRS is not supported by strong evidence; however, it can still be used by an expert radiation oncologist based on clinical judgment[48]
  • For brain metastatic lesions > 4 cm or for lesions located at eloquent areas in the brain, fractionated SRT is preferred[49]
  • In case of > 4 brain metastatic lesions, WBRT can be used; however, SRT can still be also used by an expert radiation oncologist using clinical judgment for up to ten brain metastatic lesions[48]
  • Doses for fractionated SRT range from 20 to 35 Gy in five daily and consecutive fractions. Target volumes are at radiation oncologist's discretion
  • For resected brain metastases, volumes for fractionated SRT may be performed according to the consensus guidelines[50]
  • If the metastases are removed surgically, SRS or SRT to the resection cavity plus 1–2 mm margins may improve local control[51]
  • Radiation dose varies according to the volume and location of the metastasis where 13–24 Gy in a single fraction can be given.


Hypofractionation is recommended in selected cases with large lesions or large resection cavity or where the constraints to the surrounding critical structures cannot be achieved with a dose of single fraction. The hypofractionated dose varies between 21 and 30 Gy in 3–5 fractions. The volume of whole brain receiving 12 Gy is preferred to be < 20%–30%.

Spinal oligometastases

Patients are eligible for aggressive local therapy if they meet all of the following criteria:

  • Good PS using ECOG ≤ 2 or Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) > 70%
  • Stable, controlled primary disease (recent restaging required)
  • SCLC, lymphoma, and germ cell tumors are excluded
  • Limited number of involved vertebral levels.


Indications for surgery

The indications for curative surgical intervention in the context of spinal oligometastases are summarized in the following circumstances:

  • Presence of spinal instability signs as per the Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) criteria, score >6[52]
  • Significant vertebral compression fracture (> 50%)
  • Presence of epidural disease deforming thecal sac and contacting the spinal cord (grade 1c), as per the Bilsky grading system[53]
  • Malignant symptomatic spinal cord compression, especially single level, as it is supported by Level I evidence when compared to palliative external beam radiotherapy alone[31]
  • Surgical treatment is crucial for decompression and stabilization[54]
  • Alternatively, minimally invasive vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty can be considered for patients with significant vertebral compression fracture (> 50%) if surgical decompression and stabilization procedure is deemed not suitable[55]
  • Following surgery, if patient is not a good candidate for SBRT, conventional external beam radiotherapy is indicated (20–30 Gy in 5–10 fractions).


Eligibility criteria for spinal stereotactic body radiotherapy

The following criteria have to be present in any patient before considering eligible for spinal SBRT:

  • Involvement of ≤ 3 adjacent vertebrae or multiple nonadjacent levels (separated by at least one vertebral level)
  • Absence or low-grade epidural disease
  • Absence of spinal instability signs as per the SINS criteria[52],[56],[57]
  • No significant compression fracture (> 50%) as it can increase the risk of further fracture. Vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty can be performed before considering these patients for SBRT[56]
  • SBRT can be used in the postoperative setting for selected patients.[58]


Ineligibility criteria for spinal stereotactic body radiotherapy

  • Myeloma or lymphoma
  • Nonambulatory patients
  • Compression fracture (50% loss of vertebral body height)
  • Spinal cord compression or displacement
  • Epidural compression within 3 mm of the spinal cord
  • Rapid neurologic deterioration
  • Bony retropulsion
  • Recent radiation to the same spinal area
  • MRI is medically contraindicated
  • Patients allergic to contrast dye used in MRIs or CT scans.


Spinal stereotactic body radiotherapy specifications and requirements

Before implementing a spinal SBRT program in an institution, certain criteria (including staff, technique, and logistics) have to be assured and confidently available:

  • It is highly advised that SBRT to be performed by an expert radiation oncologist using image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) technique. The required technique is described by Foote et al. (2011)[57],[59],[60]
  • Spinal SBRT is indicated in all pathologies except SCLC, lymphoma, and germ cell tumors
  • Spinal metastases referred to any spinal/paraspinal site(s) evolve within vertebral bodies or 1 cm of the vertebral bodies
  • Spinal SBRT can target metastases on:


    • Vertebral body only
    • Vertebral body and pedicle only
    • Posterior elements “arc” only


  • The target volumes may be chosen at the discretion of the treating radiation oncologist based on the extent of tumor involvement and the available techniques
  • Gap of 3 mm or more between the edge of the epidural metastasis and edge of the spinal cord is recommended in the presence of epidural extension
  • Osseous metastases planning guidelines are used for metastases arising in the ribs within 1 cm of the edge of the vertebral body
  • Paraspinal mass ≤ 5 cm that is contiguous with spine metastasis
  • Pretreatment and planning thin slice T1- and T2-weighted MRIs are required to assess the extent of disease and position of the cord and for treatment planning
  • Proper fusion of MRI and CT simulation is required
  • Myelogram can be used to improve cord visualization, especially in the presence of metal instrumentation that can obscure the cord[60]
  • Paraspinal or rib disease can be treated with SBRT if it is within 5 cm from spinal cord. Caution is advised to protect organs at risk (OAR) such as lungs and kidneys
  • The target volumes may be chosen as per the consensus guidelines for intact spinal metastases SBRT and postoperative SBRT[59],[60],[61]
  • Priority is always set to protect the cord while achieving the highest percentage of target volume coverage without overdosing the cord. Underdosing part of target volume is always required in the case of epidural disease
  • Preferred SBRT dose is 24 Gy in two consecutive fractions or 16 Gy in a single fraction[61],[62]
  • Spinal cord dose limit is 12 Gy point maximum in single fraction and 17 Gy in two fractions.[61],[62]


Intrathoracic oligometastases

Some patients with intrathoracic oligometastatic are suitable for aggressive local management. Anatomically, intrathoracic metastases are defined as lesions within the anatomic space below the thoracic inlet at the level of the top of the sternal notch and above the diaphragm.

Eligibility criteria:

  • Age >18 years
  • Good PS ECOG ≤2 or (KPS >60)
  • Controlled or stable primary disease (recent restaging is required preferably by PET/CT)
  • All pathologies are accepted except SCLC, lymphoma, and germ cell tumors
  • Thoracic locations include:[26]


    • Rib metastases adjacent to mediastinal or cervical structures
    • Scapular metastases within the thorax adjacent to lung parenchyma
    • Sternal bone metastases.


    Number of lesions:

    • 1–5 metastases for both lungs
    • 1–3 metastases for single lung
    • 1–3 mediastinal
    • Diameter of 1–5 cm.


  • Dose fractionation changes according to metastatic site(s) location
  • Respiratory motion management including abdominal compression, active breathing control, breath hold, end expiratory gating, or fiducial marker tracking is highly recommended
  • Localization Using Daily IGRT as an SBRT protocol, for example, technologies such as cone-beam CT (CBCT)
  • For central lesions defined as lesions within 2 cm from proximal bronchial tree (trachea and major bronchus), the dose would be 50 Gy in five fractions
  • For peripheral lesions, the dose prescribed in large body of literature is 48 Gy in four fractions
  • Attention should be paid to critical organ sites namely normal lung preserve, spinal cord, great vessels, esophagus, brachial plexus, and proximal bronchial tree
  • Constraints for four-fraction regimen: Spinal cord volume receiving 20.8 Gy to be < 0.35 cc and maximum point dose not to exceed 20.8 Gy. The volume of proximal bronchial tree receiving 15.6 Gy not to exceed 4cc and a maximum point < 34.8 Gy[26],[63]
  • Constrains for five-fraction regimen: spinal cord volume receiving 28, 22, and 15.6 Gy not to exceed 0.03, 0.35, and 1.2 cc, respectively. The volume of proximal bronchial tree receiving 40 Gy not to exceed 0.03 cc[64],[65]
  • The total volume of both lungs receiving 11.6 Gy and 12.4 Gy < 1500 cc and 1000 cc, respectively, when using the four-fraction regimens[26]
  • The total volume of both lungs receiving 12.5 Gy and 13.5 Gy < 1500 cc and 1000 cc, respectively, when using the four-fraction regimens[66]
  • In case of two or more lung lesions, the lung volume receiving 20 Gy < 15%.[63]


Head-and-neck oligometastases

Patient selection for head-and-neck SBRT must be discussed and evaluated by conducting a multidisciplinary tumor board meeting, which includes at least a radiation oncologist, a medical oncologist, an ear, nose and throat surgical oncologist, a pathologist, and a radiologist.

SBRT is increasingly used to treat a variety of head-and-neck tumors, primary or metastatic, as a result of its highly conformal dose distribution and stereotactic spatial accuracy in delivery. Most of the data regarding the use of SBRT in head-and-neck treatment are for primary and recurrent tumors due to limited data for metastatic disease to the head-and–neck region. Extrapolating from the success of SBRT in treating primary/recurrent head-and-neck cancer is a safe and wise method to be used in treating metastases to the head-and–neck region using SBRT.[67],[68] The potential use of SBRT is mainly at surgically inaccessible areas and where negative margins are difficult to achieve without causing significant functional morbidity.

For any patient to be suitable for aggressive local management of oligometastases, the following points have to be considered:

  • Detailed history/physical examination, which includes the PS, smoking or alcohol use, nutritional status, oral hygiene, and human papillomavirus status
  • Imaging workup to document metastasis and evaluate the primary disease and CT scans of head and neck, chest, abdomen, and pelvis with whole-body PET/CT and local MRI
  • Controlled primary disease
  • Attention has to be paid to the dose/fractionation based on target tumor volume and dose to the normal surrounding structures
  • Based on the published literature, tumors < 25 cc can be treated with SBRT using doses up to 40–45 Gy over five fractions provided that critical organs can be spared and there is no large blood vessel involvement. For larger tumors, a more protracted course of 40–45 Gy over 10–15 fractions is advised.[69] These SBRT regimens are typically delivered every other day[68]
  • Caution on dosing is advised. The risk of carotid blowout in the re-irradiation setting ranges from 3% to 20%. The carotid blowout range is 1%–20%.[69]


Hepatic oligometastases

Patient selection for liver SBRT must be discussed and evaluated in multidisciplinary tumor board meeting which includes at least a radiation oncologist, a medical oncologist, a hepatobiliary surgeon, a pathologist, a gastroenterologist, an interventional radiologist, and a radiologist. The patient has to be suitable for aggressive local management of oligometastases. Historically, surgical hepatic metastasectomy has a proven track record with 5-year survival rates of 50%–60% for selected patients. As most patients with liver metastases remain ineligible for surgery, alternative local treatment modalities, such as SBRT, radiofrequency ablation, microwave ablation, or radiolabeled microspheres, have shown some benefit.

A patient is a candidate for aggressive local management for oligometastases if he/she meets the following majority criteria:[27],[28]

  • Good PS ECOG ≤ 2
  • Controlled or stable primary disease (recent restaging required)
  • Child–Pugh class A/low B
  • All pathologies except SCLC, lymphoma, and germ cell tumors
  • Lesion(s) assessed on a contrast-enhanced liver CT, MRI, or PET/CT within 6 weeks
  • Five or less liver lesions
  • Metastasis size ≤ 8 cm
  • Adequate bone marrow function, based on CBC/differential obtained within 2 weeks
  • The normal liver is defined as that portion of liver not radiographically involved by gross tumor
  • Assessment of anatomical and physiological reserve to estimate the function of “residual liver.”


In terms of constraints:[27],[28],[63]

  • All patients required to preserve at least 700 cc of normal liver
  • No more than 30% of the normal liver to receive more than 27 Gy
  • No more than 50% of normal liver to receive over 24 Gy
  • At least 700 cc of normal liver not to receive more than 15 Gy.


Abdomino-pelvic oligometastases

Anatomically, abdomino-pelvic oligometastases are defined as lesions within the anatomic space below diaphragm superiorly and the genitourinary diaphragm inferiorly including the peritoneal and retroperitoneal spaces, but not including liver, osseous, or spinal metastases.[28] Those patients have to be suitable for aggressive local management of oligometastases. Attention is advised for specific critical organs such as the small bowel and duodenum. Patients need to meet all of the following criteria:

  • Age > 18 years
  • Good PS ECOG ≤2 or (KPS > 60)
  • Controlled or stable primary disease (recent restaging required preferably PET/CT)
  • Good high-resolution local imaging to clearly identify the target
  • All pathologies except SCLC, lymphoma, and germ cell tumors.


Adrenal gland oligometastases

Adrenal gland metastases are present in up to 50% of patients with lung cancer; isolated adrenal gland metastases with NSCLC are rare, 1%–6%.[70],[71] Adrenalectomy can be considered in carefully selected patients who have unilateral, isolated adrenal metastases and an excellent PS. SBRT is a noninvasive approach for adrenal gland metastases. The total dose range is 25–48 Gy delivered within a total number of five fractions.[72],[73] Precise and accurate delivery using several IGRT technologies is highly recommended, for example, MRI fusion, fiducial insertion for cyber knife tracking, and four-dimensional CT. Higher local control rate (> 70%) can be achieved with total biologically equivalent dose (BED) > 60 Gy and (> 90%) if total BED ≥90 Gy.

Bone (osseous) oligometastases

Osseous oligometastases are defined as lesions within any osseous structure including part of the axial skeleton, but not vertebral locations.

The following specific locations should be considered for better location definitions according to the NRG BR001 trial:[28]

  • Rib metastases within 1 cm of the vertebral bodies are classified as spinal metastasis
  • Rib/scapular metastases within the thorax adjacent to lung parenchyma are classified as lung metastasis location
  • Rib/osseous metastases adjacent to mediastinal or cervical structures are classified as the mediastinal/cervical lymph node location
  • Rib metastases adjacent to the liver are classified as the liver location
  • Rib metastases adjacent to the stomach/abdominal wall are classified as the intra-abdominal location
  • Sternal bone metastasis is considered as mediastinal/cervical lymph node location.


Oligometastases management plan

Workflow prior to treatment

  • Multidisciplinary team service compiling all services involved in OMD management
  • It is recommended that all services provide all available modalities of local therapy to be involved
  • Dedicated recognized team and clinic to implement and monitor the outcome
  • Affiliation to internationally recognized body is highly recommended.


To implement SABR service in an institution, multiple settings have to be assured:[27]

  • Dedicated SABR quality assurance meeting for SBRT treatment
  • SABR plans must meet target dose levels with respect to OAR constrains
  • Planned SABR dose must be verified by both the physicist and the treating physician
  • Strict adherence to dose constraints is highly recommended
  • IGRT as CBCT should be used to verify patient positioning prior to each treatment
  • Direct tumor localization for soft-tissue tumors is recommended, if not feasible, then reliable soft-tissue surrogates are recommended
  • Repeated CBCT is recommended if treatment delivery time exceeds 25 min
  • A final CBCT is optional after completion of treatment
  • Head-and-neck oligometastasis simulation is usually based on contouring the gross tumor volume (GTV) using thin CT cuts of 1–1.5 mm, preferably with MRI fusion. The clinical target volume (CTV) margins vary depending on the intent and the location of disease. For oligorecurrence salvage for cure in the skull base where there is a high stability, a CTV of 3 mm would be adequate, while at least 5 mm is required in other areas. For palliation, it is acceptable to have no margins beyond the GTV to minimize toxicity. The PTV varies from one center to another depending on image guidance technology and setup variability, ranging from 1 to 5 mm expansion.


Highlight 4: Response assessment: Present and future

Outcome evaluation

The clinical outcome is evaluated by comparing the disease response utilizing pretreatment and posttreatment imaging (CT,18 fluorodeoxyglucose [FDG]-PET-CT, or MRI). Imaging frequency posttreatment would be performed every 3 months by CT initially. Occasionally,18 FDG-PET-CT is needed after treatment for better discrimination between necrosis and avid viable lesion.

The radiological response is based on the RECIST Criteria:[74]

  • CR: Disappearance of the lesions at CT scan
  • Partial remission: Reduction of > 30%
  • SD: Any response < 30% to nearly unchanged disease
  • Progression of disease: Any growing lesion not clearly ascribable to fibrosis.


The incidence of toxicity can be graded according to the most recent National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events scale.[75]

Ongoing trials

The use of SABR for oligometastases has increased with overall control rate achieving 80%, which would be reflected on the OS along with multimodality cancer treatment.[76] Internationally, a number of studies recently addressed the role, safety, and potential benefits of local therapy in OMD including SABR-COMET (NCT01446744), STOMP (NCT01558427), and NRG-BR001 (NCT02206334).[22],[28],[77] Several clinical trials addressing the role of SABR for oligometastases are ongoing and accrual is still a challenge. The SABR-COMET 10 is a Phase 3 clinical trial addressing the outcome of SABR in terms of survival and quality of life for selected patients with OMD.[78] NRG-BR002 is a randomized trial comparing SBRT and/or surgery of all metastases versus standard of care for patients with oligometastatic breast cancer (NCT02364557).[79]

Future directions: Stereotactic body radiotherapy and the immune response

SBRT is the potential trigger to enhance tumor-specific immunity, and thus “prime” the immune system to immunotherapy. In addition to the well-known effect of SBRT in terms of DNA damage and direct cell death, SBRT appears to stimulate CD8+ T-cell responses. Optimal SBRT dose and timing of therapies is still the subject of ongoing research. Several ongoing clinical trials combining SBRT with immunotherapy will be hopefully an area of promising future in oncology world.[80] Several studies have suggested that SBRT or hypofractionated regimens is superior to conventional fractionation for the activation of antitumor CD8+ T-cell response (1–3). Synergistic antitumor effect has been observed in preclinical models when RT is combined with immunotherapy. With immunotherapy revolution being as a standard treatment for many solid tumors, there is growing interest in combining immunotherapy and SBRT as a means to improve response rates.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Alexander V. Louie, MD, PhD, MSc, FRCPC Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook, Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Canada, and Dr. Neil Kopek, MD, FRCPC, Assistant Professor, Cedars Cancer Centre, McGill University Montreal, Canada. Thanks to Ms. Myer Lawrence RN MSc Clinical Oncology, oncology certified nurse, and Ms. Marie Gretchen Datario as administrative assistants for this article.

Financial support and sponsorship

The authors disclosed no funding related to this article.

Conflicts of interest

The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest related to this article.



 
  References Top

1.
Dewan MZ, Galloway AE, Kawashima N, et al. Fractionated but not single-dose radiotherapy induces an immune-mediated abscopal effect when combined with anti-CTLA-4 antibody. Clin Cancer Res 2009;15:5379-88.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Lee Y, Auh SL, Wang Y, et al. Therapeutic effects of ablative radiation on local tumor require CD8+ T cells: Changing strategies for cancer treatment. Blood 2009;114:589-95.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Yang H, Jin T, Li M, et al. Synergistic effect of immunotherapy and radiotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: Current clinical trials and prospective challenges. Precis Clin Med 2019;2:57-70.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Pienta KJ, Robertson BA, Coffey DS, et al. The cancer diaspora: Metastasis beyond the seed and soil hypothesis. Clin Cancer Res 2013;19:5849-55.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Wuttig D, Baier B, Fuessel S, et al. Gene signatures of pulmonary metastases of renal cell carcinoma reflect the disease-free interval and the number of metastases per patient. Int J Cancer 2009;125:474-82.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Lussier YA, Xing HR, Salama JK, et al. MicroRNA expression characterizes oligometastasis (es). PLoS One 2011;6:e28650.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Hellman S, Weichselbaum RR. Oligometastases. J Clin Oncol 1995;13:8-10.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Reyes DK, Pienta KJ. The biology and treatment of oligometastatic cancer. Oncotarget 2015;6:8491-524.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Mehta N, Mauer AM, Hellman S, et al. Analysis of further disease progression in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: Implications for locoregional treatment. Int J Oncol 2004;25:1677-83.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Parikh RB, Cronin AM, Kozono DE, et al. Definitive primary therapy in patients presenting with oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2014;89:880-7.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Kim C, Hoang CD, Kesarwala AH, et al. Role of local ablative therapy in patients with oligometastatic and oligoprogressive non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2017;12:179-93.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Gomez DR, Blumenschein GR Jr., Lee JJ, et al. Local consolidative therapy versus maintenance therapy or observation for patients with oligometastatic non-small-cell lung cancer without progression after first-line systemic therapy: A multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol 2016;17:1672-82.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Gomez DR, Tang C, Zhang J, et al. Local consolidative therapy vs. maintenance therapy or observation for patients with oligometastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: Long-term results of a multi-institutional, phase II, randomized study. J Clin Oncol 2019;37:1558-65.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Sahgal A, Roberge D, Schellenberg D, et al. The Canadian association of radiation oncology scope of practice guidelines for lung, liver and spine stereotactic body radiotherapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2012;24:629-39.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Salama JK, Hasselle MD, Chmura SJ, et al. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for multisite extracranial oligometastases: Final report of a dose escalation trial in patients with 1 to 5 sites of metastatic disease. Cancer 2012;118:2962-70.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Cheruvu P, Metcalfe SK, Metcalfe J, et al. Comparison of outcomes in patients with stage III versus limited stage IV non-small cell lung cancer. Radiat Oncol 2011;6:80.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Greenberg PA, Hortobagyi GN, Smith TL, et al. Long-term follow-up of patients with complete remission following combination chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1996;14:2197-205.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Halsted WS. I. The results of radical operations for the cure of carcinoma of the breast. Ann Surg 1907;46:1-9.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Iyengar P, Wardak Z, Gerber DE, et al. Consolidative radiotherapy for limited metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: A phase 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 2018;4:e173501.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Radwan N, Phillips R, Ross A, et al. A phase II randomized trial of observation versus stereotactic ablative radiation for oligometastatic prostate cancer (oriole). BMC Cancer 2017;17:453.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Lewis SL, Porceddu S, Nakamura N, et al. Definitive stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for extracranial oligometastases: An international survey of 1000 radiation oncologists. Am J Clin Oncol 2017;40:418-22.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Palma DA, Olson R, Harrow S, et al. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus standard of care palliative treatment in patients with oligometastatic cancers (SABR-COMET): A randomised, phase 2, open-label trial. Lancet 2019;393:2051-8.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Thomford NR, Woolner LB, Clagett OT. The surgical treatment of metastatic tumors in the lungs. J Thoracic Cardiovasc Surg 1965; 49:357-363.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Ning MS, Gomez DR, Heymach JV, et al. Stereotactic ablative body radiation for oligometastatic and oligoprogressive disease. Transl Lung Cancer Res 2019;8:97-106.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Stephens SJ, Moravan MJ, Salama JK, et al. Managing patients with oligometastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. J Oncol Pract 2018;14:23-31.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Videtic GM, Paulus R, Singh AK, et al. Long-term follow-up on NRG oncology RTOG 0915 (NCCTG N0927): A randomized phase 2 study comparing 2 stereotactic body radiation therapy schedules for medically inoperable patients with stage I peripheral non-small cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019;103:1077-84.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Palma DA, Haasbeek CJ, Rodrigues GB, et al. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for comprehensive treatment of oligometastatic tumors (SABR-COMET): Study protocol for a randomized phase II trial. BMC Cancer 2012;12:305.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Chmura SJ, Winter K, Salama JK, et al. Phase I trial of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) to multiple metastatic sites: A NRG oncology study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018;102:S68-9.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
van Geel AN, Pastorino U, Jauch KW, et al. Surgical treatment of lung metastases: The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-soft tissue and bone sarcoma group study of 255 patients. Cancer 1996;77:675-82.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Hanrahan EO, Broglio KR, Buzdar AU, et al. Combined-modality treatment for isolated recurrences of breast carcinoma: Update on 30 years of experience at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and assessment of prognostic factors. Cancer Interdiscip Int J Am Cancer Soc 2005;104:1158-71.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Patchell RA, Tibbs PA, Regine WF, et al. Direct decompressive surgical resection in the treatment of spinal cord compression caused by metastatic cancer: A randomised trial. Lancet 2005;366:643-8.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Fong Y, Cohen AM, Fortner JG, et al. Liver resection for colorectal metastases. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:938-46.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Fong Y, Fortner J, Sun RL, et al. Clinical score for predicting recurrence after hepatic resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: Analysis of 1001 consecutive cases. Ann Surg 1999;230:309-18.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Simmonds PC, Primrose JN, Colquitt JL, et al. Surgical resection of hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer: A systematic review of published studies. Br J Cancer 2006;94:982-99.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Petrella F, Chieco P, Solli P, et al. Which factors affect pulmonary function after lung metastasectomy? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2009;35:792-6.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Gonzalez M, Poncet A, Combescure C, et al. Risk factors for survival after lung metastasectomy in colorectal cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 2013;20:572-9.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Takakura Y, Miyata Y, Okajima M, et al. Short disease-free interval is a significant risk factor for intrapulmonary recurrence after resection of pulmonary metastases in colorectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 2010;12:e68-75.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Erhunmwunsee L, Tong BC. Preoperative evaluation and indications for pulmonary metastasectomy. Thorac Surg Clin 2016;26:7-12.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Pastorino U, Buyse M, Friedel G, et al. Long-term results of lung metastasectomy: Prognostic analyses based on 5206 cases. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1997;113:37-49.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Pfannschmidt J, Dienemann H, Hoffmann H, et al. Surgical resection of pulmonary metastases from colorectal cancer: A systematic review of published series. Ann Thorac Surg 2007;84:324-38.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Sperduto PW, Kased N, Roberge D, et al. Summary report on the graded prognostic assessment: An accurate and facile diagnosis-specific tool to estimate survival for patients with brain metastases. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:419-25.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Gaspar L, Scott C, Rotman M, et al. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) of prognostic factors in three radiation therapy oncology group (RTOG) brain metastases trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997;37:745-51.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Patchell RA, Tibbs PA, Walsh JW, et al. A randomized trial of surgery in the treatment of single metastases to the brain. N Engl J Med 1990;322:494-500.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Andrews DW, Scott CB, Sperduto PW, et al. Whole brain radiation therapy with or without stereotactic radiosurgery boost for patients with one to three brain metastases: Phase III results of the RTOG 9508 randomised trial. Lancet 2004;363:1665-72.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Keller A, Doré M, Cebula H, et al. Hypofractionated stereotactic radiation therapy to the resection bed for intracranial metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2017;99:1179-89.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
Al-Omair A, Soliman H, Xu W, et al. Hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy in five daily fractions for post-operative surgical cavities in brain metastases patients with and without prior whole brain radiation. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2013;12:493-9.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
Tsao MN, Lloyd N, Wong RK, et al. Whole brain radiotherapy for the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple brain metastases. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; CD003869.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
Serizawa T, Hirai T, Nagano O, et al. Gamma knife surgery for 1-10 brain metastases without prophylactic whole-brain radiation therapy: Analysis of cases meeting the Japanese prospective multi-institute study (JLGK0901) inclusion criteria. J Neurooncol 2010;98:163-7.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
Minniti G, Scaringi C, Paolini S, et al. Single-fraction versus multifraction (3×9 Gy) stereotactic radiosurgery for large (2 cm) brain metastases: A comparative analysis of local control and risk of radiation-induced brain necrosis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016;95:1142-8.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
Soliman H, Ruschin M, Angelov L, et al. Consensus contouring guidelines for postoperative completely resected cavity stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018;100:436-42.  Back to cited text no. 50
    
51.
Soltys SG, Adler JR, Lipani JD, et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery of the postoperative resection cavity for brain metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;70:187-93.  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.
Fisher CG, DiPaola CP, Ryken TC, et al. A novel classification system for spinal instability in neoplastic disease: An evidence-based approach and expert consensus from the spine oncology study group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:E1221-9.  Back to cited text no. 52
    
53.
Bilsky MH, Laufer I, Fourney DR, et al. Reliability analysis of the epidural spinal cord compression scale. J Neurosurg Spine 2010;13:324-8.  Back to cited text no. 53
    
54.
Wright E, Ricciardi F, Arts M, et al. Metastatic spine tumor epidemiology: Comparison of trends in surgery across two decades and three continents. World Neurosurg 2018;114:e809-17.  Back to cited text no. 54
    
55.
Berenson J, Pflugmacher R, Jarzem P, 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;12:225-35.  Back to cited text no. 55
    
56.
Faruqi S, Tseng CL, Whyne C, et al. Vertebral compression fracture after spine stereotactic body radiation therapy: A review of the pathophysiology and risk factors. Neurosurgery 2018;83:314-22.  Back to cited text no. 56
    
57.
Foote M, Letourneau D, Hyde D, et al. Technique for stereotactic body radiotherapy for spinal metastases. J Clin Neurosci 2011;18:276-9.  Back to cited text no. 57
    
58.
Alghamdi M, Tseng CL, Myrehaug S, et al. Postoperative stereotactic body radiotherapy for spinal metastases. Chin Clin Oncol 2017;6:S18.  Back to cited text no. 58
    
59.
Cox BW, Spratt DE, Lovelock M, et al. International spine radiosurgery consortium consensus guidelines for target volume definition in spinal stereotactic radiosurgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012;83:e597-605.  Back to cited text no. 59
    
60.
Redmond KJ, Robertson S, Lo SS, et al. Consensus contouring guidelines for postoperative stereotactic body radiation therapy for metastatic solid tumor malignancies to the spine. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2017;97:64-74.  Back to cited text no. 60
    
61.
Sahgal A, Weinberg V, Ma L, et al. Probabilities of radiation myelopathy specific to stereotactic body radiation therapy to guide safe practice. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013;85:341-7.  Back to cited text no. 61
    
62.
Kirkpatrick JP, van der Kogel AJ, Schultheiss TE, et al. Radiation dose-volume effects in the spinal cord. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76:S42-9.  Back to cited text no. 62
    
63.
Hanna GG, Murray L, Patel R, et al. UK consensus on normal tissue dose constraints for stereotactic radiotherapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2018;30:5-14.  Back to cited text no. 63
    
64.
Timmerman R, McGarry R, Yiannoutsos C, et al. Excessive toxicity when treating central tumors in a phase II study of stereotactic body radiation therapy for medically inoperable early-stage lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:4833-9.  Back to cited text no. 64
    
65.
Timmerman R, Paulus R, Galvin J, et al. Stereotactic body radiation therapy for inoperable early stage lung cancer. JAMA 2010;303:1070-6.  Back to cited text no. 65
    
66.
Bezjak A, Papiez L, Bradley J, et al. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group RTOG 0813 seamless Phase I/II study of stereotactic lung radiotherapy (SBRT) For early stage, centrally located, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in medically inoperable patients. Update; 2009.  Back to cited text no. 66
    
67.
Garg M, Kabarriti R, Baliga S, et al. SBRT for recurrent head and neck cancer. J Phys 2017;777:12025.  Back to cited text no. 67
    
68.
Lim CM, Clump DA, Heron DE, et al. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for primary and recurrent head and neck tumors. Oral Oncol 2013;49:401-6.  Back to cited text no. 68
    
69.
Karam I, Yao M, Heron DE, et al. Survey of current practices from the International Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy Consortium (ISBRTC) for head and neck cancers. Future Oncol 2017;13:603-13.  Back to cited text no. 69
    
70.
Walters S, Maringe C, Coleman MP, et al. Lung cancer survival and stage at diagnosis in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK: A population-based study, 2004-2007. Thorax 2013;68:551-64.  Back to cited text no. 70
    
71.
Pfannschmidt J, Dienemann H. Surgical treatment of oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2010;69:251-8.  Back to cited text no. 71
    
72.
Casamassima F, Livi L, Masciullo S, et al. Stereotactic radiotherapy for adrenal gland metastases: University of Florence experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012;82:919-23.  Back to cited text no. 72
    
73.
Torok J, Wegner RE, Burton SA, et al. Stereotactic body radiation therapy for adrenal metastases: A retrospective review of a noninvasive therapeutic strategy. Future Oncol 2011;7:145-51.  Back to cited text no. 73
    
74.
Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST Guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009;45:228-47.  Back to cited text no. 74
    
75.
Trotti A, Colevas AD, Setser A, et al. CTCAE v3.0: Development of a comprehensive grading system for the adverse effects of cancer treatment. Semin Radiat Oncol 2003;13:176-81.  Back to cited text no. 75
    
76.
Haridass A. Developments in stereotactic body radiotherapy. Cancers (Basel) 2018;10. pii: E497.  Back to cited text no. 76
    
77.
Decaestecker K, de Meerleer G, Ameye F, et al. Surveillance or metastasis-directed therapy for oligometastatic prostate cancer recurrence (STOMP): Study protocol for a randomized phase II trial. BMC Cancer 2014;14:671.  Back to cited text no. 77
    
78.
Palma DA, Olson R, Harrow S, et al. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for the comprehensive treatment of 4–10 oligometastatic tumors (SABR-COMET-10): Study protocol for a randomized phase III trial. BMC Cancer 2019;19:1-5.   Back to cited text no. 78
    
79.
Chmura SJ, Winter KA, Salama JK, et al. NRG BR002: A phase IIR/III trial of Standard of care Therapy with or Without Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) and/or Surgical Ablation for Newly Oligometastatic Breast Cancer. American Society of Clinical Oncology; 2016.  Back to cited text no. 79
    
80.
Arnold KM, Flynn NJ, Raben A, et al. The impact of radiation on the tumor microenvironment: Effect of dose and fractionation schedules. Cancer Growth Metastasis 2018;11:1179064418761639.  Back to cited text no. 80
    




 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
   Abstract
  Introduction
   References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1071    
    Printed31    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded161    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal