4.7 Review

Effectiveness of Reirradiation for Painful Bone Metastases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.10.080

关键词

Radiotherapy; Reirradiation; Retreatment; Bone metastases; Palliative treatment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Reirradiation of painful bone metastases in nonresponders or patients with recurrent pain after initial response is performed in up to 42% of patients initially treated with radiotherapy. Literature on the effect of reirradiation for pain control in those patients is scarce. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we quantify the effectiveness of reirradiation for achieving pain control in patients with painful bone metastases. Methods and Materials: A free text search was performed to identify eligible studies using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Collaboration library electronic databases. After study selection and quality assessment, a pooled estimate was calculated for overall pain response for reirradiation of metastatic bone pain. Results: Our literature search identified 707 titles, of which 10 articles were selected for systematic review and seven entered the meta-analysis. Overall study quality was mediocre. Of the 2,694 patients initially treated for metastatic bone pain, 527 (20%) patients underwent reirradiation. Overall, a pain response after reirradiation was achieved in 58% of patients (pooled overall response rate 0.58, 95% confidence interval = 0.49-0.67). There was a substantial between-study heterogeneity (I-2 = 63.3%, p = 0.01) because of clinical and methodological differences between studies. Conclusions: Reirradiation of painful bone metastases is effective in terms of pain relief for a small majority of patients; approximately 40% of patients do not benefit from reirradiation. Although the validity of results is limited, this meta-analysis provides a comprehensive overview and the most quantitative estimate of reirradiation effectiveness to date. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据