Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Early evaluation predicts pain relief of irradiated bone metastases: a single-center prospective study

  • Pierre Truntzer1,
  • David Atlani2,
  • Marius Pop1,
  • Jean-Baptiste Clavier1,
  • Sébastien Guihard1,
  • Catherine Schumacher1 and
  • Georges Noel1Email author
Contributed equally
BMC Palliative Care201312:12

DOI: 10.1186/1472-684X-12-12

Received: 8 July 2012

Accepted: 14 February 2013

Published: 13 March 2013

Abstract

Background

Radiation therapy is a well-recognized, effective modality used for palliative care. Most studies completed to date have endpoints of one month or greater after treatment completion. This study analyzed the response rates at different time points during the first month after treatment.

Methods

From May 2010 to November 2011, 61 patients treated for 74 metastases were included in the study. The end points were defined as the completion of treatment (CT) and d8, d15 and d30 after the completion of treatment. The response rate was measured by the worst pain in the last 24 hours and the administered opioid dose. Patient assessment was performed during consultations and phone appointments.

Results

The overall response rate significantly improved from the CT (38%) to d8 (53.8%), d15 (53.8%) and d30 (57.1%) (respectively p < 0.001; p < 0.001 and p = 0.001). The improvement peaked at d8. Patients responding to the treatment at d8 had a significative longer pain relapse free survival (PRFS) compared to patients not responding (3.38 weeks vs 0.3 weeks; p < 0.001). From the beginning of treatment to the CT and at d8 , d15 and d30, oral morphine equivalent dose (OMED) did not significantly differ. However, the pain decrease did not result in a performance status improvement, which declined over time (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Radiation therapy is an efficient treatment method for providing pain relief. This relief peaked at d8 after treatment, and the response at d8 is predictive of the response at 4 weeks. Pain management alone is not enough to improve performance status; further studies are needed to evaluate a more global supportive care approach.

Keywords

Radiation therapy Bone metastasis Efficacy Pain Evaluation

Background

Approximately 50% of patients with cancer present metastases at the initial presentation or at relapse. Bone is one of the most frequent metastasis locations, particularly for lung, breast, and prostate cancers. Pain is the most common and debilitating symptom of bone metastases. Pain alters patient quality of life and requires specific support. This support includes motor function improvement and local or systemic treatment. Treatment may consist of the concomitant or alternate administration of analgesics, chemotherapy, hormone therapy, bisphosphonates, surgery, interventional radiology, and radiotherapy.

External beam irradiation for painful bone metastases has been well established by many prospective trials and can lead to pain relief and/or reduce analgesic consumption. Several radiation treatment schedules with similar effectiveness have been described. The most used schedules deliver 30 Gy in 10 fractions of 3 Gy, 20 Gy in 5 fractions of 4 Gy or a single fraction of 8 Gy [17]. An updated meta-analysis did not find any differences in the overall response rates between multi- and single fractionation (61% and 60%, respectively) [8]. Stereotactic beam radiation therapy (SBRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) have proved their effectiveness in spinal bone metastasis irradiation and re-irradiation [912]. A recent review showed that local control was achieved in 87% of cases [13].

The response to irradiation has been evaluated using many different types of measure. Visual analogue scales, a numeric scale, a Brief Pain Inventory, the dose of analgesics and the requirement for re-irradiation are the most frequently used [14]. Furthermore, the follow-up evaluation period after the completion of radiotherapy is variable in all trials and retrospective studies. Currently, evaluations at one or two months after irradiation completion are used to predict the definitive response to radiotherapy. However, this waiting time can be considered as too long to efficiently manage painful metastasis using re-irradiation, particularly as the life expectancy of these patients is short.

In this study, we report the response rate at the end of treatment and one, two and four weeks after treatment to determine whether an earlier evaluation could predict a definitive response.

Methods

From May 2010 to October 2011, patients referred to the radiation department of the Regional Cancer institute Paul Strauss for painful bone metastases were eligible to participate in this study examining the response after irradiation. The inclusion criteria were age above 18, ability to understand and speak French and consent to participate to the study. This study was approved by our institutional review board (committee against pain CLUD). Patients who underwent previous surgery, cementoplasty, or in-field irradiation and remained in pain were also included. Clinical evaluations were performed at the first radiotherapy consultation (beginning of treatment, BT) and at the completion of treatment (CT). Patients provided informed consent. A visual analogue scale (VAS) strip was given to each patient to evaluate their pain at home after being instructed on how to use it. On days 8, 15 and 30 after the CT, evaluations were performed during a scheduled phone appointment. The interviewer (PT) used a home survey to obtain the patient information.

The information collected at the first consultation included age, gender, primary cancer location, pathology, painful bone metastasis location, performance status, steroid treatment, analgesic morphine taken in the last 24 hours converted to the oral morphine equivalent dose (OMED) and local treatments received previously [15]. On d8, d15 and d30, OMED, performance status, and the minimum, mean and maximal pain evaluations in the past 24 hours (assessed using the VAS) were reported. The adverse effects of radiation therapy were reported according to the CTCAE v4. Patients who did not answer the phone were considered missing but were not excluded from the study.

The radiotherapy response rates were evaluated using the international bone metastases consensus group (IBMCG) criteria (Table 1).
Table 1

The response rate to radiotherapy according to the IBMCG criteria

Responders

CR

Pain reduction by two scores or more to zero and OMED stable or reduced

PR

Pain reduction by two scores or more and OMED stable or reduced

Stable pain and OMED reduction by 25% or more

Non-responders

PD

Pain increase by two scores or more and OMED stable or increased

No change in pain and OMED increased by 25% or more (or start of morphine use after baseline)

SD

Stable pain and stable OMED

UR

Other cases

Abbreviations: CR: complete response; PR: partial response; PD: progressive disease; SD: stable disease; UR: undetermined response.

The treatment was performed using linear accelerators with 6 MV or 15 MV photon beams. The TomoTherapy Hi-ART and Novalis TX systems were used for IMRT and SBRT treatment planning. The time period between the first consultation and the first irradiation session did not exceed 2 weeks.

Statistical analysis

The response rates at the different end points were compared for each patient: i) between the BT and CT, BT- d8, BT-d15 and BT-d30, ii) between the CT and d8, CT- d15 and CT-d30 iii) between d8- d15 and d8-d30, iv) between d15 and d30. Only patients with an available response rate at the compared end points were analyzed, and if the information was missing, the patient was excluded from the statistical analysis at the corresponding end point. Responders were patients with a complete response (CR) or a partial response (PR); patients with stable disease (SD), progressive disease (PD) and undetermined responses (UR) were considered as non-responders. The distributions of the Karnofsky performance status (KPS) (< 70% and ≥70%) and World Health Organisation performance status (WHO PS) (<2 and ≥ 2) at each evaluation were analyzed by the χ2 test. The nonparametric Wilcoxon test was used to compare repeated measures of pain score and OMED. A pain relapse free survival (PRFS) was calculated for the patients responding at every end points from the CT to d30 (range from 0 to 4 weeks). PRFS was analysed using a Kaplan Meyer method. p <0.05 was considered significant. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 20 (IBM Software).

Results

Between May 2010 and November 2011, 61 patients were enrolled in the study. The general characteristics of the patients are summarized in Table 2. These 61 patients were treated for 74 metastatic locations: 31 were spinal (42%), 21 were pelvic (28%), 10 were long bones (13%) 8 were scapula (11%), 3 were rib, and 1 was mandibular. Forty-nine patients were treated for one metastatic location (80%), 11 for two (18%) and 1 patient for three.
Table 2

General patient characteristics before irradiation

 

N

%/ value

 

N

%/ value

Gender

  

Median KPS (min-max) at BT

 

70 (30–100)

Male

37

60.7

Median WHO-PS(min-max) at BT

 

2 (0–4)

Female

24

39.3

Treatment before RT

  

Median Age (min-max)

 

65 (43–88)

Surgery

10

13.6

Primary cancer site

  

Cementoplasty

9

12.2

Lung and pleura

20

32.8

RT

5

6.8

Breast

12

19.7

RT/Surgery

1

1.4

Kidney, prostate

10

16.4

No treatment

49

66.1

Gastrointestinal

7

11.4

Radiation treatment modality

  

Head & Neck

3

4.8

30 Gy; 10 × 3 Gy

41

55.4

Unknown

2

3.2

20 Gy; 5 × 4 Gy

14

18.9

Other

7

11.4

8 Gy; 1 × 8 Gy

6

8.1

Metastases localization

  

23.31 Gy; 3 × 7.77 Gy

7

9.5

Spinal

31

41.9

Other

6

8.1

Pelvis

21

28.4

Number of metastases

  

Long bone

10

13.5

1

49

80

Scapula

8

10.8

2

11

18

Other

4

5.4

3

1

2

Abbreviations: KPS: karnofsky performance status; RT: radiotherapy; WHO PS: world health organization performance status.

Forty-nine metastatic sites were not treated previously (66%). Twenty five metastases were treated before the present irradiation, within a minimum of one month. Ten metastases (14%) were operated on (decompressive, stabilization), 9 (12%) received cementoplasty, 5 (7%) were irradiated, and 1 patient underwent surgery and radiotherapy. The six patients who previously received irradiation presented metastases located in spine for four and in pelvis for two metastases. The irradiation schedules before re-irradiation were 8 Gy in a single fraction (one patient), 24 Gy in 6 fractions of 4 Gy (one patient), 30 Gy in 10 fractions of 3 Gy (two patients), and 36 Gy in 12 fractions of 3 Gy (two patients).

Concerning the current irradiation, 66 bone metastases (89%) were treated with 3D conformational radiotherapy. Seven spinal metastases (9.5%) were treated with SBRT (re-irradiation in 4 cases). One metastasis was treated with IMRT. For 62 treatments (91%), the dose schedules were 8 Gy in a single fraction, 20 Gy in 5 fractions of 4 Gy and 30 Gy in 10 fractions of 3 Gy. The SBRT dose was 23.31 Gy in 3 fractions of 7.77 Gy delivered on days 1, 3 and 5. Other fractionations were proposed in 5 patients.

All patients included completed the treatment, and an evaluation at the completion of treatment was performed in 50 patients (82%). On days 8, 15 and 30, evaluations were obtained from 39 (64%), 39 (64%), and 42 (69%) patients, respectively. The reasons for no reply included unreachable by phone, death or refusal to continue the study (Table 3). Patients not responding at d30 had a statistically significant worse WHO-PS (3 vs 2; p = 0.018), but age, gender, VAS and OMED weren’t statistically different. The response rate to the treatment, median worst pain, median WHO-PS, KPS and OMED are presented in Tables 4 and 5.
Table 3

The reasons for non-evaluation

 

CT

D8

D15

D30

Unreachable by phone

11 (12.1%)

20 (32.8%)

20 (32.8%)

13 (21.7%)

Dead

0

1

1

5 (8.3%)

Refusal to continue the study

0

1

1

1

# of patients

11 (18%)

22 (36.1%)

22 (36.1%)

19 (31.1%)

Abbreviations: CT: completion of treatment.

Table 4

Response rates

 

CT

D8

D15

D30

Responders

19 (38%)

21 (53.8%)

21 (53.8%)

24 (57.1%)

       CR

4 (8%)

4 (10.3%)

6 (15.3%)

7 (16.7%)

       PR

15 (30%)

17 (43.5%)

15 (38.5%)

17 (40.4%)

Non-responders

31 (62%)

18 (46.2%)

18 (46.2%)

18 (42.9%)

       SD

20 (40%)

12 (30.8%)

10 (25.8%)

7(16.7%)

       PD

7 (14%)

4 (10.3%)

6 (15.3%)

7 (16.7%)

       UR

4 (8%)

2 (5.1%)

2 (5.1%)

4 (9.5%)

Total patients

50

39

39

42

Abbreviations: CR: complete response; PR: partial response; PD: progressive disease; SD: stable disease; UR: undetermined response.

Table 5

The intensity of the worst pain, OMED, performance status, and Karnofsky index at baseline, the CT, d8, d15 and d30 after radiotherapy treatment

 

BT

Evaluation time

Results

P*

Median worst pain (range)

7 (1–10)

CT

5 (0–10)

0.001

  

D8

3 (0–10)

<0.001

  

D15

3 (0–10)

<0.001

  

D30

3 (0–10)

<0.001

Median/Mean OMED (mg) (range)

40/90 (0–920)

CT

40/111.1 (0–720)

0.93

  

D8

30/65.7 (0–380)

0.64

  

D15

30/75.9 (0–480)

0.47

  

D30

40/91.2 (0–570)

0.96

WHO PS (range)

2 (0–4)

CT

2 (0–4)

0.003

  

D8

2 (0–4)

0.004

  

D15

2 (0–4)

0.011

  

D30

2 (0–4)

0.003

KPS (range)

70 (30–100)

CT

70 (30–100)

0.001

  

D8

70 (30–90)

0.001

  

D15

70 (30–100)

0.006

  

D30

70 (30–100)

0.002

Abbreviations: BT: beginning of treatment; CT: completion of treatment; KPS: karnofsky performance status; OMED: oral morphine equivalent dose; WHO PS: world health organization performance status.

Analysis of visual scale

Using the visual scale, the patients had a significant decrease in the median maximal pain from the BT to the CT from VAS 7 to VAS 5, respectively (p = 0.001). From the BT to d8, d15 and d30, the VAS decreased to 3 and remained statistically significant (p < 0.001 at each evaluation). There was no significant difference in the maximal VAS from the CT to d8, d15 or d30 (p = 0.115; p = 0.088; p = 0.072, respectively), from d8 to d15 or d30 (p = 0.441 and p = 0.393, respectively) or from d15 to d30 (p = 0.345).

Analysis of OMED

The OMED did not significantly differ between each interval of evaluation. The mean OMEDs at the BT, the CT, d8, d15 and d30 were 40 mg, 40 mg, 30 mg, 30 mg and 40 mg, respectively (p = 0.93 between BT and CT, p = 0.64, for CT-d8, p = 0.47 for CT-d15, p = 0.96 for CT-d30 and p = 0.96 for BT-d30).

Analysis of IBMCG

The overall response rates at CT, d8, d15 and d30 were 38%; 53.8%; 53.8% and 57.1% respectively. The CR rates at CT, d8, d15 and d30 were 8%, 10.3%, 15.3% and 16.7% respectively. Using the IBMCG criteria, there were significant improvements (CR, PR) from the CT to d8, d15 and d30 (p < 0.001; p < 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively), from d8 to d15 and d30 (p < 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively), and from d15 to d30 (p = 0.002). Univariate analysis using Kaplan Meyer method highlighted PRFS for patients having a response at d8 was significantly improved compared to patients not responding: respectively 3,38 weeks vs 0,3 weeks (p < 0,001). This result suggests response at d8 is predictive of response at d30.

Performance status (WHO PS and KPS)

Compared to the BT, WHO PS and KPS were significantly decreased at the CT, d8 and d30 (p < 0.001). However, at d15, the data showed a transitory improvement in WHO-PS and KPS (p < 0.001).

Irradiation side effects

The side effects of radiotherapy included dermatitis, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and dysphagia in 11 patients (18%) at the CT, 9 (15%) patients at d8, 9 (15%) patients at d15 and 9 (15%) patients at d30 (Table 6). According to CTCAE v4, only one patient developed grade 3 toxicity at the CT and d8; the remaining patients experienced grade 2 or less toxicities. After d8, the toxicities were grade 2 or less.
Table 6

Radiation therapy side effects at different end points

 

CT (# patients)

D8 (# patients)

D15 (# patients)

D30 (# patients)

Nausea,vomiting

3

2

1

1

Grade 1

2

1

1

1

2

0

1

0

0

3

1

0

0

0

Diarrhea

2

1

2

2

Grade 1

1

0

2

2

2

1

1

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

Dysphagia

5

5

5

5

Grade 1

3

1

4

4

2

2

3

1

1

3

0

1

0

0

Dermatitis

1

1

1

1

Grade 1

1

1

1

1

2

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

Total

11

9

9

9

Abbreviations CT: completion of treatment.

Discussion

Several consensus task forces have attempted to recommend tools or methods for following and evaluating patients with bone metastases [16, 17]. One of the recommendations was to assess pain at 2 months after the CT [18]. However, we believe that this amount of time is too long for patients in pain who may have a short life expectancy. Our study clearly showed that an evaluation at d8 is sufficient for proposing re-irradiation or another treatment for remaining painful metastases, as patients not responding at this end point have significantly lower PRFS. Another proposal was to perform re-irradiation at least one month after the previous irradiation. However, with new techniques, such as IMRT or SBRT, which can shield organs at risk (particularly the spinal cord), a higher efficient dose can be delivered, dramatically increasing the chance of controlling pain with a very low risk of complications.

This study showed phone evaluation’s feasibility to assess response to an antalgic irradiation, in order to be able to propose an adequate care of the pain. This method allows the assessment of patients at home, which is more comfortable and avoids travel. Phone evaluations can be performed by a radiation oncologist or a trained nurse. In 2004, a study assessing 830 patients by phone retrieved a higher percent of patients reachable by phone at 4 weeks (57%) after treatment completion with a steady decrease through 12 weeks (48%) [19]. Our results are comparable to that study, with 72% of patients reachable at the CT and 64-69% at d8, d15 and d30. As in a previously published series, the main cause of no reply was death or hospitalization [19].

In 2004, Chow and al. analyzed 580 patients’ response rates to radiation therapy using pain intensity scale and analgesic consumption [20]. In this study the overall response rates at 1, 2 and 4 weeks were 41%, 41% and 39% respectively. The CR rates at 1, 2 and 4 weeks were 32%, 28% and 26% respectively. In our study the overall response rates at 1,2 and 4 weeks were 38%, 53.8%, 53.8% and 57.1% respectively and CR at 1,2 and 4 weeks were 8%, 10.3%, 15.3%, and 16.7%. Our results are comparable to previously published results using the same evaluation method (IBMCG) [20] and time at evaluation (one month) [21].

Despite the improvement of the overall response to pain after radiation therapy, our study showed a worsening of the performance status. Patients had an altered performance status with a median WHO PS of 2 (0–4) at the BT. In several previous studies and trials, most patients had a WHO PS ≥ 2 [4, 5]. Unfortunately, patients with a very poor performance status at the BT, have a low probability of improving their performance status because many factors contribute to this status. However, one study showed that such patients with a short life expectancy may benefit from analgesic irradiation [22].

This study has some limitations: the population is mixed concerning metastatic localization, performance status, radiation therapy schedule, and radiation technique (RTC 3D or SBRT).

Conclusions

The prospective study demonstrated that radiation therapy is a quick and efficient treatment of bone metastasis pain. A phone evaluation of pain relief is feasible in practice. The evaluation of pain at d8 after the CT is predictive of pain relief thereafter. Thus, if needed, treatment decisions can be made earlier in the patient’s disease course. However, a good pain response is not strictly correlated to performance status.

Notes

Abbreviations

VAS: 

Visual analogue scale

BT: 

Beginning of treatment

CR: 

Complete response

CT: 

Completion of treatment

KPS: 

Karnofsky performance status

IBMCG: 

International bone metastases consensus group

IMRT: 

Intensity-Modulated radiation therapy

OMED: 

Oral morphine equivalent dose

PD: 

Progression disease

PR: 

Partial response

PRFS: 

Pain relapse free survival

RT: 

Radiation treatment

SD: 

Stable disease

SBRT: 

Stereotactic beam radiation therapy

UR: 

Undetermined response

WHO PS: 

World health organisation performance status.

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Radiation department, against cancer center Paul Strauss
(2)
Radiation department Pasteur Hospital

References

  1. Bone Pain Trial Working Party BPTW: 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. Radiother Oncol. 1999, 52: 111-121. 10.1016/S0167-8140(99)00097-3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Jeremic B, Shibamoto Y, Acimovic L, Milicic B, Milisavljevic S, Nikolic N, Aleksandrovic J, Igrutinovic I: A randomized trial of three single-dose radiation therapy regimens in the treatment of metastatic bone pain. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998, 42: 161-167.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 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: 247-255. 10.1016/S0167-8140(86)80191-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Steenland E, Leer JW, van Houwelingen H, Post WJ, van den Hout WB, Kievit J, de Haes H, Martijn H, Oei B, Vonk E: The effect of a single fraction compared to multiple fractions on painful bone metastases: a global analysis of the Dutch Bone Metastasis Study. Radiother Oncol. 1999, 52: 101-109. 10.1016/S0167-8140(99)00110-3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Nielsen OS, Bentzen SM, Sandberg E, Gadeberg CC, Timothy AR: Randomized trial of single dose versus fractionated palliative radiotherapy of bone metastases. Radiother Oncol. 1998, 47: 233-240. 10.1016/S0167-8140(98)00011-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Sze WM, Shelley MD, Held I, Wilt TJ, Mason M: Palliation of metastatic bone pain: single fraction versus multifraction radiotherapy--a systematic review of the randomised trials. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2003, 15: 345-352. 10.1016/S0936-6555(03)00113-4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Wu JS, Wong R, Johnston M, Bezjak A, Whelan T: Meta-analysis of dose-fractionation radiotherapy trials for the palliation of painful bone metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003, 55: 594-605. 10.1016/S0360-3016(02)04147-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Chow E, Zeng L, Salvo N, Dennis K, Tsao M, Lutz S: Update on the systematic review of palliative radiotherapy trials for bone metastases. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2012, 24: 112-124. 10.1016/j.clon.2011.11.004.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Ryu S, Fang Yin F, Rock J, Zhu J, Chu A, Kagan E, Rogers L, Ajlouni M, Rosenblum M, Kim JH: Image-guided and intensity-modulated radiosurgery for patients with spinal metastasis. Cancer. 2003, 97: 2013-2018. 10.1002/cncr.11296.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Chang BK, Timmerman RD: Stereotactic body radiation therapy: a comprehensive review. Am J Clin Oncol. 2007, 30: 637-644. 10.1097/COC.0b013e3180ca7cb1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Gerszten PC, Burton SA, Ozhasoglu C, Welch WC: Radiosurgery for spinal metastases: clinical experience in 500 cases from a single institution. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007, 32: 193-199. 10.1097/01.brs.0000251863.76595.a2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Gerszten PC, Mendel E, Yamada Y: Radiotherapy and radiosurgery for metastatic spine disease: what are the options, indications, and outcomes?. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009, 34: S78-92. 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b8b6f5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Sahgal A, Larson DA, Chang EL: Stereotactic body radiosurgery for spinal metastases: a critical review. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008, 71: 652-665. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.02.060.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Cleeland CS, Ryan KM: Pain assessment: global use of the Brief Pain Inventory. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 1994, 23: 129-138.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Svendsen K, Borchgrevink P, Fredheim O, Hamunen K, Mellbye A, Dale O: Choosing the unit of measurement counts: the use of oral morphine equivalents in studies of opioid consumption is a useful addition to defined daily doses. Palliat Med. 2011, 25: 725-732. 10.1177/0269216311398300.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Wu JS, Bezjak A, Chow E, Kirkbride P: Primary treatment endpoint following palliative radiotherapy for painful bone metastases: need for a consensus definition?. Clin Oncol. 2002, 14: 70-77. 10.1053/clon.2001.0012.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Chow E, Hoskin P, Mitera G, Zeng L, Lutz S, Roos D, Hahn C, van der Linden Y, Hartsell W, Kumar E: Update of the international consensus on palliative radiotherapy endpoints for future clinical trials in bone metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012, 82: 1730-1737. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.02.008.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Li KK, Hadi S, Kirou-Mauro A, Chow E: When should we define the response rates in the treatment of bone metastases by palliative radiotherapy?. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2008, 20: 83-89. 10.1016/j.clon.2007.09.009.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Chow E, Fung KW, Bradley N, Davis L, Holden L, Danjoux C: Review of telephone follow-up experience at the Rapid Response Radiotherapy Program. Support Care Cancer. 2005, 13: 549-553. 10.1007/s00520-004-0707-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Chow E, Holden L, Schueller T, Wong R, Hayter C, Hruby G, Szumacher E, Loblaw A, Danjoux C: A Comparison of Radiation Therapy Outcomes of Bone Metastases Employing International Consensus Endpoints and Traditional Endpoints. Support Cancer Ther. 2004, 1: 173-178. 10.3816/SCT.2004.n.009.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Harris K, Li K, Flynn C, Chow E: Worst, average or current pain in the Brief Pain Inventory: which should be used to calculate the response to palliative radiotherapy in patients with bone metastases?. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2007, 19: 523-527. 10.1016/j.clon.2007.04.007.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Meeuse JJ, van der Linden YM, van Tienhoven G, Gans RO, Leer JW, Reyners AK: Efficacy of radiotherapy for painful bone metastases during the last 12 weeks of life: results from the Dutch Bone Metastasis Study. Cancer. 2010, 116: 2716-2725.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-684X/12/12/prepub

Copyright

© Truntzer et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.