0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effective Pain Control With Very Low Dose Palliative Radiation Therapy for Patients With Multiple Myeloma With Uncomplicated Osseous Lesions

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background: Osteolytic lesions are present in 75% of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and frequently require palliation with radiation therapy (RT). Prior case series of patients with MM with bone pain undergoing palliative RT suggests doses ≥12 Gy (equivalent dose in 2Gy fractions, EQD2) provide excellent bone pain relief. However, recent advances in care and novel biologic agents have significantly improved overall survival and quality of life for patients with MM. We hypothesized that lower-dose RT (LDRT, EQD2 <12 Gy) offers an effective alternative to higher-dose RT (HDRT, EQD2 ≥12 Gy) for palliation of painful, uncomplicated MM bone lesions. Methods: We retrospectively identified patients with MM treated with RT for uncomplicated, painful bone lesions and stratified by EQD2 ≥/< 12 Gy. Clinical pain response (CPR) rates, acute and late toxicity, pain response duration, and retreatment rates between LDRT and HDRT groups were analyzed. Results: Thirty-five patients with 70 treated lesions were included: 24 patients (48 lesions) treated with HDRT and 11 patients (22 lesions) with LDRT. Median follow-up was 14 and 16.89 months for HDRT and LDRT, respectively. The median dose of HDRT treatment was 20 Gy versus 4 Gy in the LDRT group. The CPR rate was 98% for HDRT and 95% for LDRT. There was no significant difference in any-grade acute toxicity between the HDRT and LDRT cohorts (24.5% vs 9.1%, Χ 2 P = .20). Pain recurred in 10% of lesions (12% HDRT vs 9.5% LDRT). Median duration of pain response did not significantly differ between cohorts ( P = .91). Five lesions were retreated, 2 (9.5%) in the LDRT cohort, and 3 (6.3%) in the HDRT cohort. Conclusion: In this study, LDRT effectively palliated painful, uncomplicated MM bony lesions with acceptable CPR and duration of palliation. These data support prospective comparisons of LDRT versus HDRT for palliation of painful, uncomplicated MM bony lesions.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma.

          This International Myeloma Working Group consensus updates the disease definition of multiple myeloma to include validated biomarkers in addition to existing requirements of attributable CRAB features (hypercalcaemia, renal failure, anaemia, and bone lesions). These changes are based on the identification of biomarkers associated with near inevitable development of CRAB features in patients who would otherwise be regarded as having smouldering multiple myeloma. A delay in application of the label of multiple myeloma and postponement of therapy could be detrimental to these patients. In addition to this change, we clarify and update the underlying laboratory and radiographic variables that fulfil the criteria for the presence of myeloma-defining CRAB features, and the histological and monoclonal protein requirements for the disease diagnosis. Finally, we provide specific metrics that new biomarkers should meet for inclusion in the disease definition. The International Myeloma Working Group recommends the implementation of these criteria in routine practice and in future clinical trials, and recommends that future studies analyse any differences in outcome that might occur as a result of the new disease definition.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Continued improvement in survival in multiple myeloma: changes in early mortality and outcomes in older patients

            Therapy for multiple myeloma (MM) has dramatically changed in the past decade with introduction of new drugs, but it is not clear if the improvements have been sustained. We studied 1038 patients diagnosed between 2001 and 2010, grouping patients into two five-year periods by diagnosis, 2001–2005 and 2006–2010. The median estimated follow up for the cohort was 5.9 years with 47% alive at last follow up. The median overall survival (OS) for the entire cohort was 5.2 years; 4.6 years for patients in the 2001–2005 group compared with 6.1 years for the 2006–2010 cohort (P=0.002). The improvement was primarily seen among patients over 65 years; the 6-year OS improving from 31% to 56%; P<0.001. Only 10% of patients died during the first year in the latter group, compared with 17% in the earlier cohort (P<0.01), suggesting improvement in early mortality. The improved outcomes were linked closely to use of one or more new agents in initial therapy. The current results confirm continued survival improvement in MM and highlight the impact of initial therapy with novel agents. Most importantly, we demonstrate that the improved survival is benefitting older patients and that early mortality in this disease has reduced considerably.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Are patients at Veterans Affairs medical centers sicker? A comparative analysis of health status and medical resource use.

              The Veterans Affairs (VA) health system has been criticized for being inefficient based on comparisons of VA care with non-VA care. Whether such comparisons are biased by differences between the VA patient population and the non-VA patient population is not known. Our objective is to determine if VA patients are different from non-VA patients in terms of health status and medical resource use. We analyzed 128,099 records from the National Health Interview Survey for the years 1993 and 1994. We compared the VA patient population with the general patient population for self report on health status, number of medical conditions, number of outpatient physician visits, number of hospital admissions, and number of hospital days each year. The VA patient population had poorer health status (odds ratio [OR], 14.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.7-20.2), more medical conditions (OR, 14; 95% CI, 10.5-18.7), and higher medical resource use compared with the general patient population (OR, 3.7 for 3 or more physician visits per year; OR 5.4 for 3 or more hospital admissions per year; OR, 7.7 for 21 or more days spent in a hospital per year). However, after controlling for health and sociodemographic differences, VA patients had similar resource use compared with the general patient population. Large differences in sociodemographic status, health status, and subsequent resource use exist between the VA and the general patient population. Therefore, comparisons of VA care with non-VA care need to take these differences into account. Furthermore, health care planning and resource allocation within the VA should not be based on data extrapolated from non-VA patient populations. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:3252-3257.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Adv Radiat Oncol
                Adv Radiat Oncol
                Advances in Radiation Oncology
                Elsevier
                2452-1094
                28 May 2021
                Jul-Aug 2021
                28 May 2021
                : 6
                : 4
                : 100729
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
                [b ]Radiation Oncology Service, Durham VA Medical Health Care System, Durham, North Carolina
                [c ]Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
                [d ]Hematology/Oncology Service, Durham VA Medical Health Care System, Durham, North Carolina
                [e ]Section of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author: Jeremy G. Price, MD, PhD jeremy.price@ 123456duke.edu
                Article
                S2452-1094(21)00087-7 100729
                10.1016/j.adro.2021.100729
                8256178
                34258474
                23c047be-3631-44d4-a156-919f81978011
                © 2021 The Author(s)

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 9 July 2020
                : 8 February 2021
                : 14 May 2021
                Categories
                Scientific Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article