
==== Front
Clin Transl Radiat Oncol
Clin Transl Radiat Oncol
Clinical and Translational Radiation Oncology
2405-6308
Elsevier

S2405-6308(24)00122-8
10.1016/j.ctro.2024.100845
100845
Review Article
Half body irradiation (HBI) for bone metastases in the modern radiotherapy technique era – A systematic review
Bilski Mateusz abc
Konat-Bąska Katarzyna d
Mastroleo Federico ef
Hoskin Peter gh
Alicja Jereczek- Fossa Barbara ef
Marvaso Giulia ef
Korga Mateusz a
Klas Jakub a
Zych Katarzyna a
Bijak Piotr a
Kukiełka Andrzej ij
Fijuth Jacek kl
Kuncman Łukasz lukasz.kuncman@umed.lodz.pl
kl⁎
a Department of Radiotherapy, Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland
b Brachytherapy Department, Lublin Cancer Center, Lublin, Poland
c Radiotherapy Department, Lublin Cancer Center, Lublin, Poland
d Department of Brachyterapy, Lower Silesian Oncology Pulmonology and Hematology Center, Wroclaw, Poland
e Division of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, 20141 Milan, Italy
f Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
g Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK
h Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
i Department of Radiotherapy, NU-MED Cancer Diagnostics and Therapy Centre, Zamość, Poland
j Department of Brachytherapy, University Hospital in Krakow, Krokow, Poland
k Department of Radiotherapy, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland
l Department of External Beam Radiotherapy, Copernicus Memorial Hospital in Lodz Comprehensive Cancer Center and Traumatology, Lodz, Poland
⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of External Beam Radiotherapy, Copernicus Memorial Hospital in Lodz Comprehensive Cancer Center and Traumatology, Pabianicka 62, Łódź, PL 93-513, Poland. lukasz.kuncman@umed.lodz.pl
28 8 2024
11 2024
28 8 2024
49 1008459 6 2024
25 7 2024
18 8 2024
© 2024 The Author(s)
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Highlights

• Bone metastases are the most prevalent cause of cancer-related pain, with radiation therapy (RT) playing a vital role in its management.

• Half-body irradiation (HBI) proves effective for patients with multiple painful bone metastases, demonstrating a median rapid pain response rate of 84% and a complete pain response rate of 36%.

• Modern techniques such as Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) and helical tomotherapy have alleviated concerns regarding HBI toxicity, with most adverse effects limited to grade 1/2.

• HBI, utilizing contemporary RT techniques, is a safe and effective treatment method, meriting reconsideration for more frequent use in clinical practice.

Bone metastases (BMs) are the most common cause of cancer-related pain and radiation therapy plays a key role in treating pain caused by it. The half-body irradiation (HBI) is a modality that can be used to treat patients with multiple painful BMs. In the modern era, concerns about toxicity and the availability of new agents requiring robust bone marrow function have limited the use of HBI in advanced cancer. Concerns about HBI toxicity stem from outdated techniques; modern methods like volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and helical tomotherapy now allow safer irradiation of complex target volumes. We conducted a systematic review to present updated information about HBI efficacy and potential toxicity. Pain relief usually occurs very quickly 2–3 weeks after HBI. The overall pain response rate was high in all the series, accounting for a median of 84 % (75.6–89 %), with a median of 36 % complete pain response. The toxicity is usually limited to G1/G2, with very rare G3 cases. More than 50 % of patients can reduce analgesic intake after HBI. Additionally, with modern radiotherapy techniques, quality of life is improved in most patients. HBI is a safe and effective method and should once again be reconsidered for more frequent use.

Keywords

Half-body irradiation
HBI
Hemi-body irradiation
Bone metastases
Palliative radiotherapy
IMRT
VMAT
Tomotherapy
3D-CRT
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Bone is one of the most common metastatic sites for many malignancies, especially breast and prostate cancer. Early diagnosis of asymptomatic bone metastases (BM) enables treatment to prevent morbid events, which can include pain, hypercalcemia, pathologic fractures, spinal instability or compression of the spinal cord [1], [2].

Radiotherapy has been widely adopted to treat BM-associated instability and pain, including neuropathic pain, which is relatively common due to the proximity of neurological structures [1], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Significant pain reduction after EBRT (external beam radiotherapy) occurs in 60–96 % of patients at 1 month, with the highest rates of response occurring 3 months after completion of treatment [8], [9]. This effect is mostly connected with a partial response, which leads to a reduction in opioid consumption. Complete pain relief can be achieved in 14–45 % of patients [10], [11], [12].

Half-body irradiation or hemibody irradiation (HBI) is a type of EBRT that is used to relieve pain and protect against adverse morbidity because of multiple BM [2], [3], [4], [6], [13]. It is administered in a single fraction or less frequently in a fractioned schedule [5], [13], [14]. Depending on the border of the volume, HBI can be divided into upper HBI (UHBI), lower HBI (LHBI) and sometimes mid-body irradiation (MBI)s. It can be used as an alternative to local palliative radiotherapy where multiple BM are present, avoiding sequential radiotherapy courses and thereby a reduction in total treatment time with greater convenience for patients and their families [4], [5], [6], [7].

Although HBI is a well-established method that can be used in the palliative treatment of multiple BM, it is not widely used. Concerns about significant toxicity associated with HBI, due to the large clinical target volumes, have been prevalent. Additionally, the availability of new systemic treatments has further limited its use. The most frequently reported toxicities are hematologic and gastrointestinal, with tumor lysis syndrome also noted in the treatment of hematological malignancies [5], [15], [16]. It is important to acknowledge that the majority of this toxicity evidence originates from the 2D era; currently, advanced radiotherapy techniques such as Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) allow for the enhanced sparing of organs at risk (OAR), potentially reducing these toxic effects [17].

This systematic review aims to determine the effectiveness in pain relief and the linked toxicity profile of HBI when delivered using modern techniques that ensure more conformal dose distribution.

Materials and methods

Population, Intervention, Control, Outcome, Study Design (PICOS) strategy was adopted and reported in Table 1.Table 1 Study design according to the Population, Intervention, Control, Outcome, Study Design (PICOS) method.

Population	Patients treated with half/hemi body irradiation (HBI) because of bone metastases.	
Intervention	HBI performed with 3D-CRT, IMRT, VMAT or helical tomotherapy	
Control	Not applicable (the data will be pooled from single arm studies)	
Outcome	Primary: complete and partial pain response
Secondary: acute and late toxicity, quality of life, duration of pain response.	
Study design	Any retrospective or prospective original studies describing clinical outcomes of patients treated with HBI	

A search of scientific manuscripts in PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus and Web of science databases was conducted following PRISMA 2020 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Two blinded reviewers independently performed searchers using keywords: [halfbody irradiation] OR [hemi-body irradiation] AND [bone metastases]. In case of disagreement, the third reviewer verified the manuscripts. The search involved an analysis of all studies published to February 25, 2024.

Selection criteria

Manuscript selection criteria included both prospective and retrospective trials on hemi-body irradiation (HBI) for BM, utilizing 3D-CRT, IMRT, VMAT, or helical tomotherapy techniques. To be included in the systematic review, studies had to have at least one of the following endpoints: evaluation of complete and partial pain responses at various time points post-treatment, assessment of both acute and late toxicity, reduction rates in analgesic drug usage, retreatment rates within the HBI-treated volume, and the impact of treatment on patients' quality of life.

Exclusion criteria included the use of local radiotherapy for bone metastases, the employment of non-modern techniques such as 2D or Co60, the unavailability of the full manuscript, studies with absent or unclear results, manuscripts not written in English, and case reports or case series with fewer than five patients, along with reviews and study protocols.

Data extraction

The extracted data were as follows: study design, number of patients included, age of patients, sex, histology of the primary tumour, type of bone metastases, EBRT technique, localization of HBI, CTV definition, HBI fractionation − EQD2 (α/β ratio = 3 Gy) and EQD2 (α/β ratio = 10 Gy) doses were derived where not available, pain analysis before and after HBI, overall response rate (complete and partial response), time to significant pain response, analgesic drug intake reduction, acute and late toxicities, quality of life indicators, follow-up time and retreatment rate within PTV used for HBI.

Risk of bias analysis

The risk of bias analysis was performed following Downs and Black checklist, which consists of 27 items to assess the methodological quality of the included studies (supplementary material 1.).

Results

Initially 343 papers were found from 4 different sources. A detailed PRISMA flowchart of the screening steps is available in Fig. 1. Finally, 4 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and their characteristics are shown in Table 2. Methodological quality of the included manuscripts is available in Suppl. 1.Fig. 1 Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram for the literature selection process.

Table 2 Basic characteristics of the included studies.

Study	Macchia et al. [18]	Zamagni et al. [19]	Kluska et al. [21]	Furlan et al. [20]	
Design	Retrospective with prospectively collected data	Phase I, prospective
(SHARON Project)	Retrospective	Prospective, single arm	
Modality	3D-CRT	3D-CRT	VMAT	Tomotherapy	
Type of HBI	LHBI	MHBI+LHBI	UHBI- 8 (42 %), LHBI − 5 (26 %),
Both (2 week break) − 6 (32 %)	LHBI	
N of patients	180	25	22	13	
Age (years)	61.3 (33–95)	71	68	56.4	
Sex	M- 57 (31.7 %)
F- 123 (68.3 %)	NR	M − 12 (63 %)
F − 7 (37 %)	F- 13 (100 %)	
Histology	Breast- 98,
Prostate- 23,
Lung- 20,
Gastrointestinal-
13, other- 23	Prostate	Prostate − 10 (53 %),
Breast 7 (37 %),
Bladder- 1 (5 %), CUP − 1 (5 %)	Breast-13 (1 0 0)	
Type of BM	Osteolytic- 79
(43.9 %),
Osteblastic − 51
(28.3 %),
Mixed- 50
(27.8 %)	NR	NR	NR	
CTV- clinical target volume, PTV- planning target volume, UHBI- upper half body irradiation, LHBI- lower half body irradiation, MHBI − middle half body irradiation, 3D- CRT- three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy, VMAT- volumetric modulated arc therapy, CUP- cancer unknown primary.

Eligibility criteria for HBI administration

All patients were adults > 18 years of age with histopathological confirmation of cancer, adequate bone marrow function. Two studies mentioned that patients with an expectancy of at least 2 and 3 months of life were included [18], [19]. All included studies required patients to have painful BM, except Macchia et al. who included also 20 (11,1%) patients who were without pain before HBI [2]. In the study by Furlan et al., resistance to analgesics was established as an inclusion criterion [20]. The detailed characteristics of patient inclusion criteria are presented in Table 3.Table 3 Characteristics of inclusion criteria for HBI procedure.

Study	Macchia et al. [18]	Zamagni et al. [19]	Kluska et al. [21]	Furlan et al. [20]	
Pain because of BM	Yes but 11.1 % without pain	±	±	+ (uncontroled)	
ECOG and/or life expectancy	At least 2 months	ECOG≤3 and life expectancy > 3 months	ECOG 0–4	ECOG≤3	
N and distribution of BM	At least 5 in lumbar spine and bony pelvis	Multiple in lumbar spine, pelvis or femur	> 5 localizations	Multiple in the lower part of the Body	
HGB	Adequate	>8 mg/dl	> 8.5 g/d	≥ 10 g/dl	
WBC/NT	Adequate	NT>1,500/µl	WBC≥3,000/µl	WBC≥3,000/µl, NT>1000/µl	
PLT	Adequate	>100,000/µl	≥100,000/µl	≥100,000/µl	
Chemotherapy	Yes, at least 10 day interval before and after HBI was mandatory	NR	NR	Yes, at least 2 week break from chemotherapy	

Premedication administration

The pharmacological treatments differed among the included studies. Macchia et al. recommended the administration of metoclopramide 10 mg only one hour before every fraction if the planning target volume included the L1-L2 vertebra [2], [18]. In the analysis of Kluska et al., patients were prehydrated intravenously, and on the day of HBI, 8 mg of dexamethasone i.v. and 10 mg of metoclopramide i.m. were prescribed. For patients with LHBI, loperamide 2 mg p.o. every 8 h was also administered [21]. Furlan et al. administered 25 mg of prednisone 30 min before HBI, which was the only preventive agent used to avoid potential acute toxicity [20].

Clinical target volume definition and planning target volume definition

In all of the studies included, upper and lower HBI borders included respectively the lowest and highest localization of metastases. In two studies, upper border for LHBI was defined as one additional vertebra above lumbar spine or involved lumbar vertebra [18], [19], while the CTV for the UHBI according to Kluska et al. varied from C2-C7 to L1-L4, depending on the presence of the highest and the lowest metastasis [21]. The detailed characteristics of CTV and its relation to PTV is shown in Table 4.Table 4 Characteristics of CTV and PTV definition.

Study	Macchia et al. [18]	Zamagni et al. [19]	Kluska et al. [21]	Furlan et al. [20]	
CTV upper border	Lumbar spine plus one vertebra above	LHBI –Involved lumbar vertebrae and one above	UHBI- C2-C7 LHBI − L1-L4	L3-L4 interface	
CTV lower border	Affected femur region or, in any case, the proximal 1/3 of the femurs	LHBI −Entire femurs if involved below the proximal epiphysis (only the proximal 1/3 of the femurs if metastases localized only at the level of the femoral head)	UHBI- L1-L4
LHBI − mid lenght of femur or the most
Inferiorly located metastasis	Femoral shafts	
PTV margins	1 cm	1 cm	4–5 mm	5 mm	

Dose fractionation schemes

In the work of Macchia et al., the prescription dose was based on the histologic subtype of prostate or non-prostate cancer [18]. This finding was based on previous IAEA trial results that showed a better response in prostate cancer patients after administration of a higher dose [12]. In the cohort of patients with BM from prostate cancer, a total dose of 15 Gy (3 Gy/fraction) was prescribed over 5 consecutive working days. Two studies used hyperfractionated schedules and irradiated patients for 2 days [18], [19]. Single fraction treatment was used in two studies and it was 6 Gy for UHBI and 8 Gy for LHBI [20], [21]. In the SHARON project, a prospective phase I trial by Zamagni et al., the authors established the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) across three patient cohorts, identifying Grade ≥ 3 toxicity as the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) [19]. Table 5 present the detailed information about fractionation used in included studies.Table 5 Characteristics of dose fractionation schemas and their EQD2 calculation.

Study	Macchia et al. [18]	Zamagni et al. [19]	Kluska et al. [21]	Furlan et al. [20]	
HBI fractionation	Non prostate: 12
 Gy (3 Gy/fraction), bid in 2 days
EQD2 (α/β = 3) 14.4 Gy
EQD2 (α/β = 10) 13 Gy
	13 Gy (3.25 Gy/fraction), bid in 2 days
EQD2 (α/β = 3) 16.25 Gy
EQD2 (α/β = 10) 14.35 Gy
	UHBI- 6 Gy
EQD2 (α/β = 3) 10.8 Gy
EQD2 (α/β = 10) 8 Gy
	8 Gy in 1 fraction cover at least 80 % PTV
EQD2 (α/β = 3) 17.6 Gy
EQD2 (α/β = 10) 12 Gy	
Prostate: 15 Gy (3 Gy/fraction) in 5 days
EQD2 (α/β = 3) 18 Gy
EQD2 (α/β = 10) 16.25 Gy	14 Gy (3.5 Gy/fraction), bid in 2 days
EQD2 (α/β = 3) 18.2 Gy
EQD2 (α/β = 10) 15.75 Gy
	LHBI- 8 Gy
EQD2 (α/β = 3) 17.6 Gy
EQD2 (α/β = 10) 12 + Gy
	
15 Gy (3.75 Gy/fraction), bid in 2 days
EQD2 (α/β = 3) 20.25 Gy
EQD2 (α/β = 10) 17.19 Gy	Both (2 week break)- 6–8 Gy
at least 90 % of the prescribed dose covering the whole PTV	
Equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions (EQD2) was calculate according to linear-quadratic model EQD2 = D1(α/β + d1) / (α/β + 2 Gy) where, D1 = initial total dose, d1 = initial dose / fraction

Organ at risk dose constraints

In the analysis of Kluska et al., a VMAT technique was used, with mean doses less than 4 Gy for the liver and lungs; 3 Gy for the heart, bladder and rectum; and 2.5 Gy for the kidneys were applied [21]. In the prospective trial of Furlan et al., the OARs for LHBI were the bladder, external genitals and intestine. The bowel, rectum, and anal canal within the mesenteric region were defined as single structures. Only the intestinal dose limited with the V4 < 50 % was specified for planning guidelines [20]. In this study, an average V4 of 36 % was achieved, and the mean intestinal dose was less than 3.8 Gy.(Furlan et al). In two other studies OAR dose constraints weren’t mentioned [18], [19].

Pain response analysis and analgesic use reduction

In the work of Macchia et al. [18] and in Zamagni et al. [19], pain response was measured based on the International Consensus on Palliative Radiotherapy (ICoPR) criteria [22]. In the series reported by Kluska et al., VPNS score was used [21], while in the trial of Furlan et al., the NRS was employed [20]. CR was defined as no pain at all, and PR was defined as a reduction of a minimum of 2 points without analgesic dose escalation. Patient response was evaluated at weeks 1, 3, and 7 and every 2 months [20], [21]. Detailed information involving pain evaluation criteria and analgesic therapy reduction are presented in Table 6.Table 6 Characteristics of pain response and pain therapy reduction.

Study	Macchia et al. [18]	Zamagni et al. [19]	Kluska et al. [21]	Furlan et al. [20]	
Pain resposne scale	VAS, Pain score	VAS, IAEAP and DS	VNPS	NRS	
Pain- before and after HBI	Mean- 5.3 vs 2.7(p- 0.0001)	Mean- 5.3 vs 2.7 (p < 0.001)	Median- 5 vs 3	Mean − 4.7 vs 1	
ORR (CR and PR)	VAS
ORR- 75.6 %
CR −60 (37.5 %)
PR − 61 (38.1 %)	VAS
ORR- 76 %
CR − 9 (36 %)
PR − 10 (40 %)	ORR − 84 %
CR – 6 (31.6 %)
PR − 10 (52.4 %)	ORR − 84.6 %
CR − 8 (62 %)
PR − 3 (23 %)	
Time to significant pain response	1 month	15 days	1 month	3 weeks	
Drug reduction
Rates − CR and PR	CR − 39 (29.8 %)
PR − 27 (20.6 %)	NR	NR	CR- 6 (46.1 %)
PR − 4 (30.9 %)	
Retreatment rate within
PTV used for HBI	16.7 %	NR	NR	NR	
VAS- visual analog self-assessment scale, IAEAP International Atomic Energy Agency Pain DS Drug-Scores; NR- not reported; VNPS- verbal numeric pain score; NRS- numeric rating scale; CR- complete response; PR − partial response.

Acute and late toxicity

Macchia et al. used RTOG criteria for acute toxicity measurement and the EORTC-RTOG scale for late toxicity evaluation for their cohort after LHBI. In their series, 2 patients with symptoms related to G3 acute toxicity, 1 (0.6 %) with upper gastrointestinal toxicity and 1 (0.6 %) with haematologic toxicity. There were no cases of ≥ G4-related acute toxicity or radiation-related late toxicity [18]. In Zamagni et al., the authors used the RTOG scale to evaluate acute toxicity and RTOG/EORTC for late toxicity and no toxicities ≥ G3 were reported, independently of the used regimen [19]. Kluska et al. reported only one patient with G3 haematological toxicity after UHBI who needed red blood cell transfusion [21]. Furlan et al. used the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3.0 (CTCAE v 3.0), to assess toxicity and 3 patients (23 %) had G3 toxicity related to anemia, thrombocytopenia and leukopenia. Eight patients who received chemotherapy prior to HBI were able to continue treatment post-irradiation; however, three required a 14 to 30-day delay before starting the next cycle [20]. Summary of acute and late toxicities rates are presented in Table 7.Table 7 Characteristics of acute and late toxicity.

Study	Macchia et al. [18]	Zamagni et al. [19]	Kluska et al. [21]	Furlan et al. [20]	
Scale used	RTOG/EORTC RTOG	RTOG/EORTC RTOG	RTOG	CTCAE v 3.0	
Acute toxicity	G1- 105 (58.4 %)
G2- 36 (20 %)
G3- 2 (1.2 %)	Dose level 1:
G1- 1 (16.7 %)
Dose level 2:
G1- 1 (14.3 %)
G2- 1 (14.3 %)
Dose level 3:
G1 − 6 (50 %)
G2 − 2 (16.7 %)	G3 − 1 (5.26 %)	G1/2––5 (39 %)
G3 − 3 (23 %)	
Late toxicity	0 %	G1 − 2 (8 %)	NR	NR	
Follow-up time (months)	9 (1–131)	7.4 (3–24)	1	7 (2–12)	
EORTC − European Organization for Research and Treatment, RTOG- Radiation Therapy Oncology Group.

ECOG score and Quality of Life (QoL)

In the analysis of Macchia et al. quality of life, measured with Cancer Linear Analogue Scales (CLAS 1, 2, and 3) did not significantly change, and 85 % of patients improved or had stable Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status [18]. Zamagni et al. reported that QoL did not significantly differ among patients with CLAS1, 2 or 3 scores. During the first follow-up visit, the ECOG score improved in 11 (44 %) patients but did not change in the remaining cohort [19]. Furlan et al. used the EORTC QLQ-C30, version 3.0, for quality of life. According to this scale, after 3 weeks from HBI, 73 % of patients were ameliorated in terms of global health status, 50 % were in physical functioning, 50 % were in role functioning, 33 % were in emotional functioning, 17 % were in cognitive function and 42 % were in social functioning [20]. No assessment is available for Kluska et al. [21]. Data regarding ECOG and QoL assessment before and after HBI are summarized in Table 8.Table 8 Detailed characteristics of QoL and ECOG difference before and after HBI.

Study	Macchia et al. [18]	Zamagni et al. [19]	Kluska et al. [21]	Furlan et al. [20]	
Scale used	CLAS	CLAS	NR	EORTC QLQC30	
QoL	CLAS 1,2,3 − no significant differences	CLAS 1,2,3- no significant differences	NR	Global health status better in
66%	
ECOG
change	Improved or stable − 85 %	Improved- 44 %
Stable − 56 %	NR	NR	
CLAS −Cancer Linear Analogue Scales, CLAS1- cancer linear analog scale for well-being, CLAS2- cancer linear analog scale for fatigue, CLAS3- cancer linear analog scale for ability to perform daily activities, EORTC QLQ-C30- European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30.

Discussion

Treatment options for patients with metastatic cancer in Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 3–4 are limited, and the toxicity of systemic treatment often outweighs the benefits, as highlighted in American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines [23]. In patients at the end of life (EOL) systemic treatment can worsen the quality of life, cause significant toxicity, and incur substantial healthcare costs, and is inferior to best supportive care (BSC) [24]. Despite this, the rates of its use do not decrease [25]. Particularly concerning is the use of immunotherapy, which is documented to be associated with poor outcomes in these patients [25], [26].

In this context, the use of Hemibody Irradiation (HBI) may be particularly justified, especially in patients with poor prognosis. Recently published ESTRO-ACROP guidelines recommend single fraction hemibody or wide field irradiation with Grade A, Level 1b evidence for diffuse pain caused by multiple BM [27]. These guidelines emphasize the rapid pain response and the cost-effectiveness benefit of this approach, highlighting its particular importance in patients with poor prognosis [4].

Although HBI is a well-established method that can be used in the palliative treatment of multiple BM, effective in relieving pain, with low toxicity that improves patients' quality of life, it is not widely used, and most studies on its use have relied on older radiotherapy techniques. Due to advancements in radiation therapy planning and delivery techniques in recent decades, a re-evaluation and refresh of the benefits and application of the HBI technique seems necessary what was highlighted in recently published systemic review and metanalysis [17]. The advantage of the new radiotherapy techniques is the ability to deliver the radiation dose in a more conformal manner which, in the case of the patients treated for multiple BM, determines the delivery of a highly conformal dose to the skeletal system with a reduction of radiation in the surrounding organs.

To the best of our knowledge, our analysis is the only one that considers the HBI technique implemented solely in the era of 3D planning.

Pain reduction

The advantage of large-volume irradiation is that a very quick analgesic response is observed approximately 2–3 weeks after the end of treatment [19], [20]. This faster analgesic response may be related to a systemic effect of radiotherapy resulting from irradiation of large areas. Due to its high effectiveness and potential for quick analgesic response, the procedure also justifies the use of HBI in patients with a short overall predictable survival time, i.e., at least 1 month. Highly conformal radiotherapy techniques require verification of the patient's positioning before each fraction, in addition, maintaining the same therapeutic position for a patient with severe pain may be difficult with more fractions. This may restrict the use of HBI radiotherapy with multi-fractional regimens using new radiotherapy techniques. Single-fraction regimen should be the preferred scheme for patients with severe pain or reduced performance status.

Whilst the use of fractionated HBI eliminates the need for close patient supervision and premedication it often requires hospitalization. On the other hand, HBI using one fraction can be performed on an outpatient basis, which is more convenient for palliative patients.

The effectiveness of HBI as measured by pain reduction ranged from 75.6 % to 89 % (4.13–15.23). These results are consistent with the data from previous analyses [17], [28], [29]. In the published meta-analysis by Berk L et al, which included the implementation of HBI using both new and old radiotherapy techniques, the response rate for pain was 80 %, with a complete response rate of 29 % [17]. The quality of the studies was largely assessed as poor, but the accessed response to pain did not differ significantly between them [17]. A serious limitation in the ability to compare results is the use of different pain rating scales and the definition of partial response.

A meta-analysis of responses to conventional limited field radiotherapy for bones metastases assessed using a unified scale: the International Consensus Pain Response Endpoints (ICPRE) showed overall response rates of 60.4 %. Previous meta-analyses in which studies with differing definitions of pain response were included showed overall response rates of 72 % to 75 % [30]. Future research on HBI should assess pain response using international scales.

Toxicity

The most serious complication of UHBI is radiation pneumonitis, especially when the dose absorbed in the lungs exceeds 6 Gy [31]. For LHBI, the main critical organ is the gastrointestinal tract, which leads to nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. For both lower and upper HBI, the main problem is haematological complications due to that a large area of bone marrow is irradiated. Haematologic toxicity in the form of: leucopenia, anaemia or thrombocytopenia occurs approximately 10 % more often in patients after HBI compared to a group treated with a local field radiotherapy alone [32].

The data regarding toxicity following HBI are encouraging. G3 side effects were observed in 0–23 % of patients (on average, only 3.4 %). In the study by Furlan et al., the G3 haematological toxicity in 3 out of 13 (23 %) patients with breast cancer was most likely caused by the combination of chemotherapy and irradiation of large volumes of bone marrow [20]. Modern techniques for delivering radiation, starting from conformal radiotherapy through VMAT and tomotherapy, allow for a significant dose reductions in OARs which reduce subsequent side effects, especially in the gastrointestinal tract and lungs [33], [34]. Similar conclusions about the potential for reducing toxicity with the use of modern techniques are drawn from the systematic review [17]. The authors of the studies included in the analysis mostly did not use hydration, limiting premedication to a steroid or an anti-emetogenic drug.

Qualification criteria

The definition of criteria for qualifying patients for HBI requires consensus.

In patients in whom BM are the main site of dissemination and systemic treatment options are exhausted due to progression, the combination of the UHBI and LHBI appears to be a valuable therapeutic option [19].

It is unclear whether HBI should be reserved only for the treatment of painful BM. In the study by Macchia et al., patients without pain also qualified for the HBI procedure [18]. The paradigm of using palliative radiotherapy only in patients with symptomatic metastases is beginning to change. In the study by Gillespie et al., the addition of radiotherapy to standard therapy in patients with asymptomatic BM was shown to be associated with a significantly lower rate of skeletal complications (SREs)— 1.6 % vs. 29 % after 1 year of follow-up (p < 0.001). These patients also needed fewer SRE-related hospitalizations (0 % versus 11 %) (p = 0.045). Importantly, after a 2.5-year follow-up period, overall survival (OS) was also significantly longer in patients who underwent radiotherapy (1.7 years vs. 1 year [hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95 % CI, 0.27 to 0.89; P=0.018), and this trend was maintained in the multivariate Cox analysis (HR, 0.46; 95 % CI, 0.23 to 0.85; P=0.01) [35], [36]. These reports require confirmation in phase III studies, but they are a very important contribution to considering the wider use of HBI in patients with BM.

A recently published analysis of predictive factors of response to palliative radiotherapy showed that high opioid use and re-irradiation negatively affected response to palliative radiotherapy [37].

The minimum level of haemoglobin, neutrophil, platelet count and performance status should be defined. Despite the use of modern irradiation techniques, the CTV includes a significant volume of bone marrow which is associated with potential haematological toxicity. Based on this review, the minimum values of blood parameters before the HBI procedure should be haemoglobin ≥ 8 ng/dl, total white count 3,000/µl, neutrophils > 1000/µl, and platelets > 100,000/µl.

Limitations

The main limitation of this review is the relatively small number of patients from non randomized studies. Patients were diverse in terms of tumour pathology, performance status, prognosis and potential response to treatment. Different areas were irradiated (UHBI, LHBI, MHBI) and different scales were used to assess quality of life or response to pain treatment. Different fractionation schemes and modern radiotherapy techniques were used. There was a lack of dose reporting in all critical organs, and follow-up time was also different.

Conclusions

In the light of the limitations and high toxicity of systemic treatments for patients with metastatic cancer at the end of life, HBI presents a compelling alternative and should be integrated more broadly into treatment protocols. Advantages emerging from our systematic review of HBI, implemented using modern techniques such as VMAT, IMRT, 3D-CRT and Tomotherapy, include its rapid pain relief, cost-effectiveness, and favorable response with low toxicity.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Mateusz Bilski: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Formal analysis, Data curation. Katarzyna Konat-Bąska: Writing – original draft, Formal analysis. Federico Mastroleo: Writing – review & editing, Validation. Peter Hoskin: Writing – review & editing, Validation. Barbara Alicja Jereczek- Fossa: Writing – review & editing, Validation. Giulia Marvaso: Writing – review & editing. Mateusz Korga: Data curation, Writing – original draft. Jakub Klas: Data curation, Writing – original draft. Katarzyna Zych: Data curation, Writing – original draft. Piotr Bijak: Data curation, Writing – original draft. Andrzej Kukiełka: Writing – original draft. Jacek Fijuth: Writing – review & editing. Łukasz Kuncman: Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Supervision.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Peter Hoskin is supported by NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. The other authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A Supplementary data

The following are the Supplementary data to this article:Supplementary Data 1

Appendix A Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctro.2024.100845.
==== Refs
References

1 Clézardin P. Coleman R. Puppo M. Bone metastasis: mechanisms, therapies, and biomarkers Physiol Rev 101 3 2021 797 855 10.1152/PHYSREV.00012.2019 33356915
2 Coleman R.E. Roodman S. Body Vessella S. Clinical features of metastatic bone disease and risk of skeletal morbidity Clin Cancer Res 12 20 Pt 2 2006 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-0931
3 Roos D.E. Radiotherapy for neuropathic pain due to bone metastases Ann Palliat Med 4 4 2015 220 224 10.3978/J.ISSN.2224-5820.2015.08.03 26541402
4 Pal S. Dutta S. Adhikary S. Bhattacharya B. Ghosh B. Patra N. Hemi body irradiation: an economical way of palliation of pain in bone metastasis in advanced cancer South Asian J Cancer 3 1 2014 28 32 10.4103/2278-330X.126513 24665443
5 Sas-Korczyńska B. Rzeźnik D. Wójcik M. Ząbek M. Skóra T. Half body irradiation (HBI) in palliative treatment of multiple cancer metastases - contemporary evaluation Contemporary Oncology/współczesna Onkologia 6 6 2003 395 399
6 Nag S. Shah V. Once-a-week lower hemibody irradiation (HBI) for metastatic cancers Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 12 6 1986 1003 1005 10.1016/0360-3016(86)90398-6 2424877
7 Skolyszewski J. Sas-Korczynska B. Korzeniowski S. Reinfuss M. The efficiency and tolerance of half-body irradiation (HBI) in patients with multiple metastases. The Krakow experience Strahlenther Onkol 177 9 2001 482 486 10.1007/PL00002430 11591022
8 Choi J. Lee E.J. Yang S.H. Im Y.R. Seong J. A prospective Phase II study for the efficacy of radiotherapy in combination with zoledronic acid in treating painful bone metastases from gastrointestinal cancers J Radiat Res 60 2 2019 242 10.1093/JRR/RRY092 30445597
9 Arifin A.J. Young S. Bauman G.S. Planning for the effect of the SC.24 trial on spine stereotactic body radiation therapy utilization at a tertiary cancer center Adv Radiat Oncol 8 5 2023 10.1016/J.ADRO.2023.101220
10 De Felice F. Piccioli A. Musio D. Tombolini V. The role of radiation therapy in bone metastases management Oncotarget 8 15 2017 25691 25699 10.18632/oncotarget.14823 28148890
11 Sahgal A. Myrehaug S.D. Siva S. Stereotactic body radiotherapy versus conventional external beam radiotherapy in patients with painful spinal metastases: an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial Lancet Oncol 22 7 2021 1023 1033 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00196-0 34126044
12 Salazar O.M. Sandhu T. Da Motta N.W. Fractionated half-body irradiation (HBI) for the rapid palliation of widespread, symptomatic, metastatic bone disease: a randomized Phase III trial of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 50 3 2001 765 775 10.1016/S0360-3016(01)01495-X 11395246
13 Hoskin P.J. Ford H.T. Harmer C.L. Hemibody irradiation (HBI) for metastatic bone pain in two histologically distinct groups of patients Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 1 2 1989 67 69 10.1016/S0936-6555(89)80037-8 2484791
14 Miszczyk L. Gaborek A. Tukiendorf A. Jochymek B. Wydmański J. Half-body irradiation: a safe and acceptable treatment Med Sci Monit 15 6 2009 CR319-24
15 Sakamoto K. Radiobiological basis for cancer therapy by total or half-body irradiation Nonlinearity Biol Toxicol Med 2 4 2004 293 10.1080/15401420490900254 19330149
16 Rostom A.Y. El-Hussainy G. Kandil A. Allam A. Tumor lysis syndrome following hemi-body irradiation for metastatic breast cancer Ann Oncol 11 10 2000 1349 1351 10.1023/A:1008347226743 11106126
17 Berk L, Scarantino C, Finkelstein S, Finkelstein M. Hemibody irradiation for bone metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cureus. Published online January 9, 2024. doi:10.7759/cureus.51925.
18 Macchia G. Ferro M. Cilla S. Efficacy and safety of 3D-conformal half body irradiation in patients with multiple bone metastases Clin Exp Metastasis 35 8 2018 747 752 10.1007/s10585-018-9939-1 30251079
19 Zamagni A. Buwenge M. Macchia G. Accelerated middle half body radiotherapy in bone metastases from prostate cancer: a phase I study (SHARON project) Anticancer Res 39 9 2019 5065 5069 10.21873/anticanres.13699 31519616
20 Furlan C. Trovo M. Drigo A. Capra E. Trovo M.G. Half-body irradiation with tomotherapy for pain palliation in metastatic breast cancer J Pain Symptom Manage 47 1 2014 174 180 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2013.02.022 23796585
21 Kluska A. Tomasik B. Osadnik A. Retrospective analysis of the effectiveness of volumetric modulated arc therapy half-body irradiation in palliation of pain in patients with multiple bone metastases Mol Clin Oncol 17 5 2022 10.3892/mco.2022.2586
22 Chow E. Hoskin P. Mitera G. Update of the international consensus on palliative radiotherapy endpoints for future clinical trials in bone metastases Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 82 5 2012 1730 1737 10.1016/J.IJROBP.2011.02.008 21489705
23 Schnipper L.E. Davidson N.E. Wollins D.S. American Society of Clinical Oncology statement: a conceptual framework to assess the value of cancer treatment options J Clin Oncol 33 23 2015 2563 2577 10.1200/JCO.2015.61.670 26101248
24 Geyer T. Le N.S. Groissenberger I. Jutz F. Tschurlovich L. Kreye G. Systemic anticancer treatment near the end of life: a narrative literature review Curr Treat Options Oncol 24 10 2023 1328 1350 10.1007/s11864-023-01115-x 37501037
25 Canavan M. Wang X. Ascha M. End-of-life systemic oncologic treatment in the immunotherapy era: the role of race, insurance, and practice setting J Clin Oncol 41 30 2023 4729 4738 10.1200/JCO.22.02180 37339389
26 Patel A.K. Duperreault M.F. Pandya C.J. Outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitor administration in hospitalized patients with solid tumor malignancies JCO Oncol Pract 19 2 2023 e298 e305 10.1200/OP.22.00256 36409966
27 van der Velden J. Willmann J. Spałek M. ESTRO ACROP guidelines for external beam radiotherapy of patients with uncomplicated bone metastases Radiother Oncol 173 2022 197 206 10.1016/j.radonc.2022.05.024 35661676
28 Berg R.S. Yilmaz M.K. Høyer M. Keldsen N. Nielsen O.S. Ewertz M. Half body irradiation of patients with multiple bone metastases: a phase II trial Acta Oncol (Madr) 48 4 2009 556 561 10.1080/02841860802488128
29 Salazar O.M. Rubin P. Hendrickson F.R. Komaki R. Single-dose half-body irradiation for palliation of multiple bone metastases from solid tumors: final radiation therapy oncology group report Cancer 58 1 1986 29 36 10.1002/1097-0142(19860701)58:1<29::aid-cncr2820580107>3.0.co;2-2 2423225
30 Imano N. Saito T. Hoskin P. Pain response rates after conventional radiation therapy for bone metastases assessed using international consensus pain response endpoints: a systematic review and meta-analysis of initial radiation therapy and reirradiation Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 116 4 2023 739 746 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.01.050 36736920
31 Fowler J.F. Travis E.L. The radiation pneumonitis syndrome in half-body radiation therapy Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 4 11–12 1978 1111 1113 10.1016/0360-3016(78)90029-9 102626
32 Poulter C.A. Cosmatos D. Rubin P. Urtasun R. A report of RTOG 8206: a phase III study of whether the addition of single dose hemibody irradiation to standard fractionated local field irradiation is more effective than local field irradiation alone in the treatment of symptomatic osseous metastases Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 23 1 1992 207 214 10.1016/0360-3016(92)90563-w 1374061
33 Scobioala S. Kittel C. Wissmann N. A treatment planning study comparing tomotherapy, volumetric modulated arc therapy, sliding window and proton therapy for low-risk prostate carcinoma Radiat Oncol 11 1 2016 10.1186/S13014-016-0707-6
34 Hongkham N. Tharavichitkul E. Wanwilairat S. Dosimetric comparison between volumetric modulated arc therapy and helical tomotherapy in prostate cancer treatment planning Accessed April 22, 2024 J Thai Assoc Radiat Oncol 26 2 2020 R56 R67 https://he01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/jtaro/article/view/240582
35 Gillespie E.F. Yang J.C. Mathis N.J. Prophylactic radiation therapy versus standard of care for patients with high-risk asymptomatic bone metastases: a multicenter, randomized phase II clinical trial J Clin Oncol 42 1 2024 38 46 10.1200/JCO.23.00753 37748124
36 Killock D. Irradiation of asymptomatic bone metastases improves outcomes Nat Rev Clin Oncol 20 12 2023 817 10.1038/S41571-023-00828-0
37 Koide Y. Shindo Y. Nagai N. Classification of patients with painful tumors to predict the response to palliative radiotherapy Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys S0360–3016 24 2024 00427 00429 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.03.012
