==== Front Cancer Med Cancer Med 10.1002/(ISSN)2045-7634 CAM4 Cancer Medicine 2045-7634 John Wiley and Sons Inc. Hoboken 37162297 10.1002/cam4.6019 CAM46019 CAM4-2022-02-0520.R6 Research Article RESEARCH ARTICLES Clinical Cancer Research The impact of radiosensitivity on clinical outcomes of spinal metastases treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy Guo et al. Guo Lanlan 1 2 Xu Qingqing 1 2 Ke Lixin https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5622-6656 3 Wu Ziwei 1 2 Zeng Ziyi https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8603-7802 1 2 Chen Lei https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2478-4543 1 2 Chen Yuanyuan https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1611-0111 1 2 Lu Lixia https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0549-3786 2 lulx@sysucc.org.cn 1 Sun Yat‐sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy Guangzhou People's Republic of China 2 Department of Radiation Oncology Sun Yat‐sen University Cancer Center Guangzhou China 3 Department of Liver Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital Sun Yat‐sen University Guangzhou China * Correspondence Lixia Lu, Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat‐sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou 510060, China. Email: lulx@sysucc.org.cn 10 5 2023 6 2023 12 12 10.1002/cam4.v12.12 1327913289 04 4 2023 07 2 2022 21 4 2023 © 2023 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Abstract Background To evaluate the impact of radiosensitivity on outcomes of spinal metastases treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and identify the correlated prognostic factors. Methods The authors retrospectively reviewed the records of all patients who underwent SBRT with no prior radiation for spinal metastases between October 2015 and October 2020 at Sun Yat‐sen University Cancer Center. On the basis of radiosensitivity, patients were divided into two groups—radiosensitive and radioresistant. The endpoints included local control (LC), overall survival (OS), pain relief, and time to pain relief. Results A total of 259 (82.5%) patients with 451 lesions were assessable with a median follow‐up time of 10.53 months. The 1‐, 2‐, and 3‐year OS rates were 59%, 52%, and 44%, respectively. The median survival was 33.17 months. Higher Karnofsky Performance Scale score and shorter time to diagnosis of spinal metastases from primary cancer at consult predicted for better OS (p = 0.02 and p < 0.001, respectively). The presence of other metastases (p = 0.04) and pain at enrollment assessed by the Brief Pain Inventory predicted for worse OS (p = 0.01). The 6‐, 12‐, and 24‐month LC rates were 88%, 86%, and 82%, respectively. Younger age was identified for better LC and pain relief (p < 0.001 and p = 0.04, respectively). There was no variable independently associated with time to pain relief. As for toxicity, no Grade ≥3 toxicity was observed. Conclusions Regardless of radiosensitivity, SBRT is feasible and appears to be an effective treatment paradigm for patients with spinal metastases, with limited accepted toxicities. local control spinal metastases stereotactic body radiotherapy source-schema-version-number2.0 cover-dateJune 2023 details-of-publishers-convertorConverter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.3.0 mode:remove_FC converted:03.07.2023 Guo L , Xu Q , Ke L , et al. The impact of radiosensitivity on clinical outcomes of spinal metastases treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy. Cancer Med. 2023;12 :13279‐13289. doi:10.1002/cam4.6019 Lanlan Guo and Qingqing Xu contributed equally to this work. ==== Body pmc1 INTRODUCTION Following lung and liver metastases, bone metastases are regarded as the most common tumor metastases, mostly in the spine. 1 , 2 According to the estimation, up to 40% of cancer patients will develop spinal metastases during their lifetime. 3 Over 70% of spinal metastases are situated in the thoracic or lumbar spine; cervical spine metastases and sacrum are included in 4%–18% and 5% of the sample in recent series, respectively. 4 , 5 More than 10% of cancer patients with spinal metastases will develop metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (ESCC). 6 , 7 The occurrence of spinal metastases can lead to substantial morbidity. For patients with spinal metastases, the conventional treatment paradigm includes chemotherapy, targeted therapy, surgery, radiotherapy, and immunotherapy, which need multidisciplinary cooperation. Additionally, with the development of surgical techniques and implementations, more and more clinicians choose to treat patients with adjuvant radiation therapy. In the meanwhile, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) has emerged as an attractive alternative for spinal metastases. In particular, SBRT can deliver high doses of radiation to the target lesions with high accuracy, while sparing the critical organs at risk (OARs) to a great extent. However, it might be due to careful patient selection that SBRT might develop further in the treatment of spinal metastases. Selecting patients treated with spinal SBRT is of great significance, which can avoid the catastrophic consequences of failure. For carefully selected patients, SBRT could be a standard treatment modality. The goal of treatment for patients with spinal metastases remains palliative, in order to prevent the progression or retreatment, delaying it at least. The definition of pain flare was temporary worsening of pain in the treated site, which maybe a potential side effect of palliative radiotherapy for symptomatic bone metastases. 8 Therefore, a better understanding of long‐term efficacy and safety about these treatment modalities is essential. According to previous studies, 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 radioresistant histological types included renal cell carcinoma (RCC), melanoma, and sarcoma, which indicate a poor local tumor control treated with conventional external beam radiotherapy (cEBRT); radiosensitive histological types included lymphoma, seminoma, myeloma, prostate cancer, and breast cancer. A study 17 exploring the impact of histology and dose on local control (LC) of spinal metastases treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) demonstrated that high‐dose single‐session SRS can provide durable tumor control, irrespective of the histology or tumor size. However, there was no statistical analysis in histology. We conducted this study to further evaluate the prognosis and adverse effects of SBRT for spinal metastases with different radiosensitivity. The purpose of this study is to further promote the indications of SBRT and lay a foundation for clinical decision‐making. Based on this, it might provide a reference for further prospective clinical trials. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the influence of tumor radiosensitivity on the effect of SBRT to patients with spinal metastases, and attempt to elucidate indications for patient selection. Further categorizing tumors with different radiosensitivity (radiosensitive, radioresistant), 10 , 14 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 of the classification of our study, radiosensitive carcinomas included small cell lung cancer, nasopharyngeal carcinoma, breast cancer, and prostate cancer. Also, radioresistant carcinomas included liver cancer, melanoma, sarcoma, and pancreatic cancer. We specifically examined pain relief, time to pain relief, durable LC, overall survival (OS), and toxicities after SBRT for spinal metastases. 2 METHODS 2.1 Patient population and selection criteria We retrospectively reviewed a consecutive series of 547 lesions in 314 patients who were treated with SBRT for spinal metastases at Sun Yat‐sen University Cancer Center between October 2015 and October 2020, and gathered outcomes until December 2020. All patients had histologically proven primary cancer diagnosis. Spinal metastases were diagnosed by CT and/or MRI and/or PET‐CT. Institutional review board (IRB) approval was obtained at the Sun Yat‐sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China. Eligibility criteria included: age >18 years; a pathological diagnosis of primary cancer; oligometastasis (five or fewer radiographically apparent metastases.); KPS score of ≥70; lesions treated with radiographic or clinical follow‐up; a maximum of three separate sites of treatment, up to two contiguous levels within one radiation field. Patients were ineligible if they had acute spinal cord compression or the presence of overt spinal instability. 2.2 SBRT treatment SBRT was performed using intensity‐modulated radiation therapy planning or other dose painting techniques. Unless contraindicated, all patients underwent 3 mm slice thickness contrast‐enhanced CT and/or MRI simulation scanning. Patients received radiation in one to six fractions with a 6–8 MV X‐ray beam applied using the Elekta Precise Treatment System (Elekta AB) or the Elekta Versa HD System (Elekta AB). The contouring guidelines for the targets and organs‐at‐risk, dose delivering and dose restriction of spinal metastases treated with SBRT in accordance with previous studies 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 and RTOG 0631 protocol. 26 The prescription doses in the study were included. Also, the delivered doses in the study meet the criteria of the hypofractionated radiation therapy. 2.3 Outcomes assessment LC was defined as no progression within the treated vertebral body level on following CT or MRI. Vertebral compression fracture (VCF) was defined as de novo and progressive preexisting fractures. Toxicity was graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5.0. 27 Pain relief included complete pain relief and partial pain relief. Complete pain relief is defined as a pain score of 0 at the lesion site is 0 at 3 months after treatment, with based on no increase in anesthetic analgesics. Partial pain relief is defined as a reduction of ≥3 points in the pain score at the lesion site (i.e., an improvement of at least 3 points from baseline Brief Pain Inventory [BPI] score), no increase in the pain score for other treatments, and no need to increase the dose of narcotic pain drugs. However, even if the pain score is decreased by ≥3 points, patients who require an increase in the dose of narcotic analgesics are not considered to achieve partial pain relief. For assessment of pain palliation, the 4‐point verbal rating scale (VRS‐4) 28 was administered, along with a categorical scale representing different levels of pain intensity: “none,” “mild,” “moderate,” “severe.” Epidural extent was graded utilizing criteria by Bilsky et al. 29 Usually, the word “oligometastases” is defined as ≤5 radiographic metastases. 2.4 Data collection A retrospective review of the hospital records and radiographic studies of these patients was performed. Data on each patient including age, sex, date of initial diagnosis of primary cancer, histology of primary cancer, date of diagnosis of first spinal metastasis, location of the spinal metastasis (single vertebral segment, only thoracic vertebra or lumbar vertebra), radiation sites, other metastases (metastases of all sites other than treated bone metastases), further radiotherapy to other sites, the presence of paraspinal extension, further systemic treatment, number of the spinal metastasis, previous treatments (including surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy [RT]) and KPS score, pre‐SBRT pain as assessed by the BPI (when available), ESCC grade pre‐SBRT, and SBRT information (including RT dose, and number of RT fractions delivered) were gathered. 2.5 Statistical analysis Both continuous and categorical variables were summarized. The Kaplan–Meier product‐limit method was used to estimate OS, and survival curves were compared using the log‐rank test. Factors associated with OS after SBRT were assessed using univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards analyses, as well as LC. Hazard ratios (HRs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed. Factors associated with pain palliation and the incidence of SBRT complications were assessed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. Factors associated with the time of pain palliation were assessed using linear regression. All mean values are presented as mean ± standard error. All p‐values were two‐sided. Here, a p < 0.05 was considered statically significant. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software (version 26.0, IBM). 3 RESULTS 3.1 Patient demographics During the study period, 314 patients treated with SBRT were included between October 2015 and October 2020, and 55 patients have been lost to follow‐up. The demographic, tumor, and treatment characteristics of 259 patients with 451 lesions are summarized in Table 1. One hundred eighty‐four patients (71.0%) were male, 75 (29.0%) were female. The median age was 57 years (range, 19–89 years). The median KPS score was 90 (range, 70–100). The median follow‐up for all patients was 10.53 months (range, 0.33–59.03 months). The minimal follow‐up time is 0.33 month. TABLE 1 Baseline patient demographic, tumor, and treatment characteristics. Characteristic Radiosensitive Radioresistant Total No. of Patients % No. of Patients % No. of Patients % All patients 76 29.3 183 70.7 259 of 314 82.5 Sex Male 64 84.2 120 65.6 184 71.0 Female 12 15.8 63 34.4 75 29.0 Age at time of SBRT (year) Range 31–89 19–86 19–89 Median 67 55 57 Other metastases Yes 13 17.1 43 23.5 56 21.6 No 63 82.9 140 76.5 203 78.4 Surgery Yes 5 6.6 35 19.1 40 15.4 No 71 93.4 148 80.9 219 84.6 Karnofsky performance status Range 70–95 70–100 70–100 Median 90 90 90 Spine location/level Cervical 8 10.5 19 10.4 27 10.4 Thoracic 46 60.5 83 45.4 129 49.8 Lumbar 18 23.7 68 37.2 86 33.2 Sacral 4 5.3 13 7.1 17 6.6 Bilsky epidural Grade 0 60 78.9 126 68.9 186 71.8 1a 1 1.3 7 3.8 8 3.1 1b 7 9.2 24 13.1 31 12.0 1c 4 5.3 5 2.7 9 3.5 2 4 5.3 21 11.5 25 9.6 Number of lesions Range 1–4 1–7 1–7 Median 1 1 1 Paraspinal extension Yes 14 18.4 72 39.3 86 66.8 No 62 81.6 111 60.7 173 33.2 Systemic therapy Chemotherapy 72 94.7 90 49.2 162 62.5 Bisphosphonate therapy 55 72.4 101 55.2 156 60.2 Other radiation Yes 55 72.4 41 22.4 73 28.2 No 21 27.6 142 77.6 186 71.8 Total dose (Gy) Range 8–45 8–48 8–48 Median 27 30 30 Fractions Range 1–6 1–6 1–6 Median 5 5 5 Time to diagnosis of spinal metastases from primary cancer Range 0–177.53 0–181.37 0–181.37 Median 9.69 5.87 6.33 Among all treated lesions, 27 (10.4%) were cervical, 129 (49.8%) thoracic, 86 (33.2%) lumbar, and 17 (6.6%) sacral. There were 258 patients defined as oligometastases. The most common lesions treated were metastatic tumors of the lung (n = 66), followed by prostate cancer (n = 66) and others. The ESCC grades were 0 in 186 (71.8%), 1a in 8 (3.1%), 1b in 31 (12.0%), 1c in 9 (3.5%), and 2 in 25 (9.6%). Of the 24 patients with epidural disease compressing the spinal cord (Bilsky Grade 2), 12 underwent surgery. Because of the medical comorbidities and intolerance for surgery, the other 12 patients were treated with SBRT alone. The spinal metastases with paraspinal extension were 82 (40.59%). One hundred sixty‐two (62.5%) patients experienced prior chemotherapy, and 156 (60.2%) prior bisphosphonate therapy. Patients treated with radiation therapy on other sites were 73 (28.2%). In this consecutive series, 137 (30.4%) lesions were from radiosensitive tumors, 341 (69.6%) from radioresistant malignancies. The median interval from the initial diagnosis of primary cancer to the diagnosis of spinal metastases was 6.33 months (range, 0–181.37 months). Of the 451 lesions, 40 (15.4%) were treated with SBRT postoperatively. The median total dose delivered was 30 Gy (range, 8–48 Gy), with a median fraction number of 5 (range, 1–6). The median biologically effective dose delivered was 48.0 Gy (range, 14.4–86.4 Gy). 3.2 Local control The 6‐, 12‐, and 24‐month LC rates were 88%, 86%, and 82%, respectively. On univariate analysis, age was the only factor associated with LC rate (p < 0.001). There was no statistical significance in radiosensitivity (p = 0.12) (Figure 1). On multivariate analysis, age and dose were significant factors associated with LC rate (p < 0.001 and p = 0.02) (Table 2). FIGURE 1 Local control for radiosensitive versus radioresistant spinal metastases of 259 patients. TABLE 2 Univariate and multivariate analysis of local control of 259 patients. Variable Univariate hazard ratio p‐Value Multivariate hazard ratio p‐Value Sex 1.02 (0.43–2.41) 0.96 1.63 (0.64–4.14) 0.30 Age 0.95 (0.93–0.98) <0.001 0.93 (0.90–0.97) <0.001 Treating site 0.81 (0.49–1.34) 0.40 0.71 (0.39–1.31) 0.28 Paraspinal extension 1.74 (0.82–3.70) 0.15 1.53 (0.63–3.73) 0.35 KPS score at consult 0.99 (0.93–1.06) 0.78 1.01 (0.95–1.08) 0.68 Radiosensitivity 2.05 (0.82–5.09) 0.12 1.48 (0.47–4.67) 0.50 Number of lesions 0.68 (0.42–1.10) 0.11 0.78 (0.46–1.30) 0.34 Dose 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 0.69 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 0.02 Fractions 0.92 (0.70–1.20) 0.54 1.53 (0.93–2.51) 0.10 Time to diagnosis of spinal metastases from primary cancer 0.98 (0.96–1.00) 0.10 0.99 (0.97–1.01) 0.43 Other metastases (Yes/No) 1.47 (0.56–3.87) 0.44 1.78 (0.65–4.90) 0.26 Bilsky grade 1.18 (0.94–1.48) 0.15 1.16 (0.89–1.52) 0.27 Surgery (Yes/No) 1.80 (0.76–4.23) 0.18 0.75 (0.26–2.15) 0.59 Bisphosphonate (Yes/No) 0.75 (0.36–1.58) 0.45 0.90 (0.39–2.08) 0.81 Other radiation (Yes/No) 0.64 (0.26–1.58) 0.33 0.98 (0.35–2.73) 0.97 Chemotherapy (Yes/No) 0.60 (0.28–1.27) 0.18 0.52 (0.21–1.29) 0.16 Pain 0.94 (0.44–2.00) 0.87 0.96 (0.42–2.17) 0.92 3.3 Overall survival The OS rates at 1, 2, and 3 years were 59%, 52%, and 44%, respectively (Figure 2). One hundred fourteen patients were still followed up at the 3‐year timepoint. The mean survival was 34.45 months (95% CI, 30.31–38.59 months). The median survival was 33.17 months. There was no statistically significant difference in radiosensitivity associated with OS (p = 0.11) (Figure 3). The cumulative incidence for radiosensitive and radioresistant spinal metastases is shown in Figure 4. On univariate analysis, the factors that significantly affected OS were KPS score (p = 0.02), the presence of other metastases (p = 0.04), treating site (p = 0.02), and the presence of pain at enrollment (p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, KPS score (p = 0.04), treating site (p = 0.04), the presence of pain (p = 0.02), and other metastases (p = 0.02) were significant factors of worse OS (Table 3). FIGURE 2 Kaplan–Meier chart showing overall survival after SBRT in spinal metastases. FIGURE 3 Overall survival for radiosensitive versus radioresistant spinal metastases of 259 patients. FIGURE 4 Cumulative incidence for radiosensitive versus radioresistant spinal metastases. TABLE 3 Univariate and multivariate analysis of overall survival of 259 patients. Variable Univariate hazard ratio p‐Value Multivariate hazard ratio p‐Value Sex 0.82 (0.49–1.35) 0.43 0.99 (0.55–1.77) 0.97 Age 1.00 (0.99–1.02) 0.93 1.02 (0.99–1.04) 0.15 Treating site 1.40 (1.05–1.85) 0.02 1.37 (1.02–1.86) 0.04 Paraspinal extension 1.03 (0.64–1.67) 0.90 1.05 (0.60–1.85) 0.85 KPS score at consult 0.96 (0.92–0.99) 0.02 0.96 (0.92–1.00) 0.04 Radiosensitivity 1.48 (0.91–2.40) 0.11 0.97 (0.51–1.86) 0.93 Number of lesions 1.08 (0.87–1.35) 0.48 0.98 (0.77–1.24) 0.85 Dose 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 0.46 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 0.78 Fractions 1.08 (0.89–1.30) 0.43 1.11 (0.84–1.47) 0.47 Time to diagnosis of spinal metastases from primary cancer 1.00 (0.99–1.01) 0.55 1.00 (0.99–1.01) 0.52 Other metastases (Yes/No) 1.91 (1.03–3.54) 0.04 2.16 (1.12–4.15) 0.02 Bilsky grade 0.91 (0.76–1.08) 0.28 0.89 (0.71–1.10) 0.28 Surgery (Yes/No) 0.73 (0.38–1.42) 0.35 0.80 (0.36–1.78) 0.59 Bisphosphonate (Yes/No) 1.34 (0.84–2.15) 0.22 1.40 (0.85–2.30) 0.19 Other radiation (Yes/No) 0.95 (0.59–1.53) 0.82 1.05 (0.61–1.82) 0.85 Chemotherapy (Yes/No) 1.01 (0.63–1.63) 0.96 1.24 (0.72–2.15) 0.43 Pain (Yes/No) 2.15 (1.37–3.37) <0.001 1.81 (1.12–2.93) 0.02 3.4 Pain relief Of the 143 patients with baseline pain, 8 patients were lost to follow‐up and 135 patients were assessable. Because of the retrospective characteristic of our study, it was hard to avoid several patients not to keep up with the follow‐up. The range “0” of time to pain relief means that the patients attained pain relief on the day of radiation. Almost at the time of receiving radiation, pain palliation was achieved. We reported a 76.3% (103/135 patients) of pain relief. Univariate analysis identified age (p = 0.04) to be prognostic for better pain relief. On multivariate analysis, age retained its significance in terms of pain relief (p = 0.04). The others were not significant factors, including treating site, paraspinal extension, KPS score at consult, the number of metastases, dose, fractions, time to spinal metastases, Bilsky grade, and use of surgery. The median time to pain relief was 0.8 months (range, 0–14.67 months). On univariate and multivariate analyses, there were no significant factors with time to pain relief. 3.5 Treatment after SBRT Radiotherapy is considered as a local treatment. Therefore, after SBRT, 314 underwent systemic therapy for primary cancer, including chemotherapy in 129 (41.08%) patients, immunotherapy in 43 (13.69%) patients, and targeted therapy in 105 (33.44%) patients. Obviously, almost these treatments were for primary cancer. In addition, other local treatments were applied, including surgery in 8 (2.55%) patients and radiation for other sites in 66 (21.0%) patients. Meanwhile, 156 patients (49.68%) were receiving bisphosphonate. Bisphosphonates were mainly used in reducing the incidence of bone disease, bone pain, and fracture. 3.6 Toxicity All patients tolerated SBRT well with minimal complications or toxicity, with no Grade ≥3 toxicities observed in any patient. And there were no cases of myelopathy or radiculopathy. Overall, 26 (8.28%) patients experienced VCFs. Of these patients, two were surgically stabilized before SBRT, with 24 VCFs occurring after SBRT in the nonsurgical sites. Twenty‐one of 26 were de novo VCFs and others were the progression of an existing VCF. On univariate analysis, the factor that significantly affected the rate of VCF was use of bisphosphonate (p = 0.045). There was no statistically significant difference for radiosensitivity (p = 0.39). On multivariate analysis, the use of bisphosphonate was a predictor for the occurrence of VCF (p = 0.02). Two patients experienced pain flare after SBRT that required hospitalization. Grade 1/2 toxicity consisted of fatigue during treatment for nine patients, and one patient had decreasing smelling after SBRT not requiring treatment. No patient had persistent or worsening neurological symptoms. 4 DISCUSSION In 1995, spinal radiosurgery was first applied to patients with spinal metastases, who demonstrated radiographic recurrence or progression after treatment with cEBRT. 30 When spinal metastases are presented with symptomatic VCF, mechanical instability, and acute ESCC, surgery should be considered in many cases. 31 For patients not requiring surgery or unbearable to surgery, cEBRT is taken into consideration (low‐ to intermediate‐dose in 1 or more fractions). 18 With imaging and treatment technology developing, SBRT has increasingly established its role in the treatment for spinal metastases. Selecting patients treated with spinal SBRT is of great significance, which can avoid the catastrophic consequences of failure. For carefully selected patients, SBRT could be a standard treatment modality. In our study, of patients with radiographic follow‐up, 1‐year LC rate was 86%. The result was consistent with several previous analysis. 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 In addition, 6‐month LC rate was 88%. Another study 37 reported that 6‐ and 9‐month LC rates were 86% and 86%, respectively. The rates were consistent with our result. The 2‐year LC rate ranged from 73% to 83.9%. 32 , 33 , 36 The 2‐year LC rate was 82% in our study. With regard to different histologies, LC rates varied from 80% to 100%, while no statistically significant difference was found. 17 In some degree, different histologies represent different biological behaviors, thus lead to different radiosensitivity. After our analysis, there was no statistically significance in radiosensitivity (p = 0.12). According to above studies, we can think that SBRT could provide durable local tumor control regardless of radiosensitivity. Of the 28 patients regarded as local failure, liver cancer and renal cell cancer take up 21.4%, respectively. As for LC, we reported that age was a statistically significant factor (p < 0.001). Younger seemed to have a better local tumor control. In future patient selection, age could be taken into consideration. We also paid attention to the survival outcomes. We reported that the OS rates at 1‐ and 2‐year were 59% and 52%, respectively. These results are consistent with prior reports in the literature. 33 , 34 , 36 , 38 Compared with previous results, 17 , 33 , 34 , 38 , 39 there were similar median and mean survival periods demonstrated in our study, 33.17 and 34.45 months (95% CI, 30.31–38.59 months), respectively. In some degree, it suggested appropriate patient selection via definite inclusion and exclusion criteria. KPS score was used to evaluate general condition of patients. Obviously, higher KPS score, and better general condition. It is regarded as a predictor for OS (p = 0.02). With better general condition, patients with spinal metastases would accomplish the treatment and gain the survival benefit from SBRT. Moreover, the presence of other metastases and pain at enrollment were significant factors for OS (p = 0.04, p < 0.01). In those who experienced pain at enrollment, achieving pain relief could be a predictor for better OS (p < 0.01). As is known to us, for bone metastases, including spinal metastases, the most common symptom was pain. Therefore, with regard to patients with baseline pain, timely and optimal analgesia treatment modality was critical before SBRT. Of course, both analgesics and radiotherapy produced analgesic effects. But there was no denying that we did see better OS among patients who had attained pain relief. In the meanwhile, after the diagnosis of primary cancer, regular physical examination is essential in case of the occurrence of spinal metastases (p < 0.04). It demonstrated that treating site was a significant factor for OS (p = 0.02). Overall, it indicated that cervical vertebrae had a better OS (27 patients), followed by lumbar vertebrae (86 patients), thoracic vertebrae (129 patients), and sacral vertebrae (17 patients). It may be because sacral vertebrae are adjacent to ilium. Therefore, some patients developed myelosuppression after radiation therapy. Through the statistical analysis, there was no significant difference found in radiosensitivity with LC (p = 0.12) and OS (p = 0.11). It could be predicted that spinal SBRT provides a satisfying LC and OS, regardless of radiosensitivity. For these patients, SBRT aims to achieve the pain palliation and delay or even prevent the retreatment. We reported 76.3% of pain relief rate, similar to previous reported rates. 32 , 34 , 40 , 41 Univariate and multivariate analyses identified age (p = 0.04) to be a prognostic factor for pain relief. Younger age could achieve better pain relief. In a way, it may be associated with faster cell proliferation in younger people. When selecting patients to be treated with SBRT, age might be taken into consideration. To our knowledge, there are no uniformly accepted indications in patient selection for spinal SBRT. The above factors might provide instructions in selecting patients. Moreover, the neurologic, oncologic, mechanical, and systemic (NOMS) framework 42 and the location of disease in the spine, mechanical instability, neurology, oncology, and patient fitness, prognosis and response to prior therapy framework (LMNOP) 43 might play an important role in patient selection. The most common toxicity for spinal metastases treated with SBRT was the occurrence of VCF. For patients, VCF would have an influence on the quality of life, such as intolerable bone pain. Hence, fracture prevention is of great importance. As for the toxicity of patients treated with SBRT, we demonstrated a risk of VCF of 8.28%, which is consistent with previous spinal SBRT literatures reporting rates ranging from 5% to 42%. 44 The use of bisphosphonate (p = 0.045) could decrease the risk of VCF. Therefore, it is necessary to take some preventive measures to avoid the occurrence of VCF after SBRT. Several strengths of this study deserve mention. First, we categorized tumors with different radiosensitivity. No statistically significant difference was found in radiosensitivity with OS, LC, pain relief, and time to pain relief. Our results might provide a reference for future research. Second, in the study, we analyzed the aspects including OS, LC, pain relief rate, and time to pain relief. Obviously, it included and analyzed comprehensive outcomes. Third, without limited in single fraction, we reported one to six fractions; the results were consistent with previous studies. Moreover, to the best of our knowledge, our study was the first to report the outcomes of spinal metastases treated with SBRT in China. There were a number of limitations in this study. Given the retrospectively collected data, selection biases inevitably existed. Furthermore, assessment of pain response was not prospectively collected. The study is limited because of the experience of single institution, which is needed to be validated in other institutions. 5 CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, regardless of radiosensitivity, SBRT is a noninvasive intervention that seems to be viable, safe, and effective for patients with spinal metastases. With minimal accepted toxicities, a good tumor control was achieved. Furthermore, patients can be expected to develop durable LC and pain relief on treated lesions. To confirm late toxicities and define patient selection, further studies with large sample sizes and a longer follow‐up are required. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS Lanlan Guo: Data curation (lead); formal analysis (lead); methodology (lead); resources (lead); software (lead); writing – original draft (lead). Qing‐Qing Xu: Investigation (equal); methodology (equal); resources (equal); software (equal); writing – original draft (equal). Lixin Ke: Conceptualization (equal); methodology (equal); resources (equal); software (equal); writing – original draft (equal). Ziwei Wu: Data curation (equal); formal analysis (equal); methodology (equal). Ziyi Zeng: Formal analysis (equal); software (equal); validation (equal). Lei Chen: Methodology (equal); project administration (equal); supervision (equal). Yuan‐Yuan Chen: Methodology (equal); project administration (equal); supervision (equal). Li‐Xia Lu: Methodology (equal); project administration (equal); supervision (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT The authors have no conflict of interest to declare. ETHICAL APPROVAL The study was approved by the ethics committee of Sun Yat‐Sen University Cancer Center (number SL‐B2021‐237‐01). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS None. DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT The retrospective data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request. ==== Refs REFERENCES 1 Anwar M , Barani IJ . Role of stereotactic body radiotherapy in spinal metastasis and subsequent fracture risk: identifying and treating the at‐risk patient. CNS Oncol. 2013;2 :437‐445.25054666 2 Witham TF , Khavkin YA , Gallia GL , Wolinsky JP , Gokaslan ZL . Surgery insight: current management of epidural spinal cord compression from metastatic spine disease. Nat Clin Pract Neurol. 2006;2 :87‐94. quiz 116.16932530 3 Klimo P Jr , Schmidt MH . Surgical management of spinal metastases. Oncologist. 2004;9 :188‐196.15047923 4 Husain ZA , Sahgal A , De Salles A , et al. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for de novo spinal metastases: systematic review. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017;27 :295‐302.28598293 5 Myrehaug S , Soliman H , Tseng C , Heyn C , Sahgal A . Re‐irradiation of vertebral body metastases: treatment in the radiosurgery era. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2018;30 :85‐92.29203091 6 Prasad D , Schiff D . Malignant spinal‐cord compression. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6 :15‐24.15629272 7 Rades D , Abrahm JL . The role of radiotherapy for metastatic epidural spinal cord compression. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2010;7 :590‐598.20808299 8 Chow E , Meyer RM , Ding K , et al. Dexamethasone in the prophylaxis of radiation‐induced pain flare after palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases: a double‐blind, randomised placebo‐controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16 :1463‐1472.26489389 9 Gilbert RW , Kim JH , Posner JB . Epidural spinal cord compression from metastatic tumor: diagnosis and treatment. Ann Neurol. 1978;3 :40‐51.655653 10 Maranzano E , Bellavita R , Rossi R , et al. Short‐course versus split‐course radiotherapy in metastatic spinal cord compression: results of a phase III, randomized, multicenter trial. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23 :3358‐3365.15738534 11 Rades D , Fehlauer F , Stalpers LJ , et al. A prospective evaluation of two radiotherapy schedules with 10 versus 20 fractions for the treatment of metastatic spinal cord compression: final results of a multicenter study. Cancer. 2004;101 :2687‐2692.15493037 12 Rades D , Stalpers LJ , Hulshof MC , Zschenker O , Alberti W , Koning CC . Effectiveness and toxicity of single‐fraction radiotherapy with 1 × 8 Gy for metastatic spinal cord compression. Radiother Oncol. 2005;75 :70‐73.15878103 13 Rades D , Fehlauer F , Schulte R , et al. Prognostic factors for local control and survival after radiotherapy of metastatic spinal cord compression. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24 :3388‐3393.16849752 14 Katagiri H , Takahashi M , Inagaki J , et al. Clinical results of nonsurgical treatment for spinal metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998;42 :1127‐1132.9869239 15 Maranzano E , Latini P , Perrucci E , Beneventi S , Lupattelli M , Corgna E . Short‐course radiotherapy (8 Gy x 2) in metastatic spinal cord compression: an effective and feasible treatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997;38 :1037‐1044.9276370 16 Rades D , Karstens JH , Alberti W . Role of radiotherapy in the treatment of motor dysfunction due to metastatic spinal cord compression: comparison of three different fractionation schedules. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;54 :1160‐1164.12419444 17 Yamada Y , Katsoulakis E , Laufer I , et al. The impact of histology and delivered dose on local control of spinal metastases treated with stereotactic radiosurgery. Neurosurg Focus. 2017;42 :E6. 18 Mizumoto M , Harada H , Asakura H , et al. Radiotherapy for patients with metastases to the spinal column: a review of 603 patients at Shizuoka cancer center hospital. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;79 :208‐213.20418024 19 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‐S92.19829280 20 Maranzano E , Latini P . Effectiveness of radiation therapy without surgery in metastatic spinal cord compression: final results from a prospective trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995;32 :959‐967.7607970 21 Zeng KL , Tseng CL , Soliman H , Weiss Y , Sahgal A , Myrehaug S . Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for oligometastatic spine metastases: an overview. Front Oncol. 2019;9 :337.31119099 22 Redmond KJ , Robertson S , Lo SS , et al. Consensus contouring guidelines for postoperative stereotactic body radiation therapy for metastatic solid tumor malignancies to the spine. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;97 :64‐74.27843035 23 Tseng CL , Soliman H , Myrehaug S , et al. Imaging‐based outcomes for 24 Gy in 2 daily fractions for patients with de novo spinal metastases treated with spine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018;102 :499‐507.30003994 24 Guckenberger M , Sweeney RA , Flickinger JC , et al. Clinical practice of image‐guided spine radiosurgery – results from an international research consortium. Radiat Oncol. 2011;6 :172.22172095 25 Guckenberger M , Hawkins M , Flentje M , Sweeney RA . Fractionated radiosurgery for painful spinal metastases: DOSIS – a phase II trial. BMC Cancer. 2012;12 :530.23164174 26 Ryu S , Pugh SL , Gerszten PC , et al. RTOG 0631 phase 2/3 study of image guided stereotactic radiosurgery for localized (1‐3) spine metastases: phase 2 results. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2014;4 :76‐81.24890347 27 Lancia A , Ingrosso G , Carosi A , et al. Oligometastatic cancer: stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for patients affected by isolated body metastasis. Acta Oncol. 2017;56 :1621‐1625.28820285 28 Briggs M , Closs JS . A descriptive study of the use of visual analogue scales and verbal rating scales for the assessment of postoperative pain in orthopedic patients. J Pain Symptom Manage. 1999;18 :438‐446.10641470 29 Bilsky MH , Laufer I , Fourney DR , et al. Reliability analysis of the epidural spinal cord compression scale. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;13 :324‐328.20809724 30 Hamilton AJ , Lulu BA , Fosmire H , Stea B , Cassady JR . Preliminary clinical experience with linear accelerator‐based spinal stereotactic radiosurgery. Neurosurgery. 1995;36 :311‐319.7731511 31 Glicksman RM , Tjong MC , Neves‐Junior WFP , et al. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for the management of spinal metastases: a review. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6 :567‐577.31895403 32 Anand AK , Venkadamanickam G , Punnakal AU , et al. Hypofractionated stereotactic body radiotherapy in spinal metastasis – with or without epidural extension. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2015;27 :345‐352.25726363 33 Guckenberger M , Mantel F , Gerszten PC , et al. Safety and efficacy of stereotactic body radiotherapy as primary treatment for vertebral metastases: a multi‐institutional analysis. Radiat Oncol. 2014;9 :226.25319530 34 Ito K , Ogawa H , Shimizuguchi T , et al. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for spinal metastases: clinical experience in 134 cases from a single Japanese institution. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2018;17 :1‐9. 35 Bate BG , Khan NR , Kimball BY , Gabrick K , Weaver J . Stereotactic radiosurgery for spinal metastases with or without separation surgery. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015;22 :409‐415.25635638 36 Gill B , Oermann E , Ju A , et al. Fiducial‐free CyberKnife stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for single vertebral body metastases: acceptable local control and normal tissue tolerance with 5 fraction approach. Front Oncol. 2012;2 :39.22645718 37 Giaj‐Levra N , Niyazi M , Figlia V , et al. Feasibility and preliminary clinical results of linac‐based stereotactic body radiotherapy for spinal metastases using a dedicated contouring and planning system. Radiat Oncol. 2019;14 :184.31655620 38 Lee SH , Tatsui CE , Ghia AJ , et al. Can the spinal instability neoplastic score prior to spinal radiosurgery predict compression fractures following stereotactic spinal radiosurgery for metastatic spinal tumor?: a post hoc analysis of prospective phase II single‐institution trials. J Neurooncol. 2016;126 :509‐517.26643804 39 Thibault I , Atenafu EG , Chang E , et al. Risk of vertebral compression fracture specific to osteolytic renal cell carcinoma spinal metastases after stereotactic body radiotherapy: a multi‐institutional study. J Radiosurg SBRT. 2015;3 :297‐305.29296412 40 Chang UK , Youn SM , Park SQ , Rhee CH . Clinical results of cyberknife(r) radiosurgery for spinal metastases. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2009;46 :538‐544.20062569 41 Sheehan JP , Shaffrey CI , Schlesinger D , Williams BJ , Arlet V , Larner J . Radiosurgery in the treatment of spinal metastases: tumor control, survival, and quality of life after helical tomotherapy. Neurosurgery. 2009;65 :1052‐1061. discussion 1061‐1062.19934964 42 Laufer I , Rubin DG , Lis E , et al. The NOMS framework: approach to the treatment of spinal metastatic tumors. Oncologist. 2013;18 :744‐751.23709750 43 Paton GR , Frangou E , Fourney DR . Contemporary treatment strategy for spinal metastasis: the "LMNOP" system. Can J Neurol Sci. 2011;38 :396‐403.21515496 44 Faruqi S , Tseng CL , Whyne C , et al. Vertebral compression fracture after spine stereotactic body radiation therapy: a review of the pathophysiology and risk factors. Neurosurgery. 2018;83 :314‐322.29048517