Objectives To determine whether Radiofrequency Ablation (RFA) followed by Radiotherapy (RT) (RFA-RT) produces better palliation in terms of pain than RT alone in patients with osteolytic bone metastases. Methods Patients with solitary bone metastases and a pain score of least 5 or more on the VAS scale were selected. Fifteen patients were treated with RFA-RT (20 Gy delivered in 5 fractions of 4 Gy over 1 week) and were compared with a matched group (30 subjects) treated by RT. Results A complete response in terms of pain relief at 12 weeks was documented in 16.6% (5/30) and 53.3% (8/15) of the subjects treated by RT or RFA-RT, respectively (p=0.027). The overall response rate at 12 weeks was 93.3% (14 patients) in the group treated by RFA-RT and 59.9% (18 patients) in the group treated by RT (p=0.048). Although recurrent pain was documented more frequently after RT (26.6%) than after RFA-RT (6.7%) the difference did not reach statistical significance. The morbidity related to RT did not significantly differ when this treatment was associated with RFA. Conclusions Our results suggest that RFA-RT is safe and more effective than RT. The findings described here should serve as a framework around which to design future clinical trials.

A Feasibility Study of Percutaneous Radiofrequency Ablation with Radiotherapy in Painful Osteolytic Bone Metastases

GRAVINA, GIOVANNI LUCA;MASCIOCCHI, CARLO;
2010-01-01

Abstract

Objectives To determine whether Radiofrequency Ablation (RFA) followed by Radiotherapy (RT) (RFA-RT) produces better palliation in terms of pain than RT alone in patients with osteolytic bone metastases. Methods Patients with solitary bone metastases and a pain score of least 5 or more on the VAS scale were selected. Fifteen patients were treated with RFA-RT (20 Gy delivered in 5 fractions of 4 Gy over 1 week) and were compared with a matched group (30 subjects) treated by RT. Results A complete response in terms of pain relief at 12 weeks was documented in 16.6% (5/30) and 53.3% (8/15) of the subjects treated by RT or RFA-RT, respectively (p=0.027). The overall response rate at 12 weeks was 93.3% (14 patients) in the group treated by RFA-RT and 59.9% (18 patients) in the group treated by RT (p=0.048). Although recurrent pain was documented more frequently after RT (26.6%) than after RFA-RT (6.7%) the difference did not reach statistical significance. The morbidity related to RT did not significantly differ when this treatment was associated with RFA. Conclusions Our results suggest that RFA-RT is safe and more effective than RT. The findings described here should serve as a framework around which to design future clinical trials.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11697/4820
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
social impact