Effect of Immunotherapy and Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Sequencing on Local Control and Survival in Patients With Spine Metastases

Jacob Eckstein; Emile Gogineni; Baho Sidiqi; Noah Lisser; Bhupesh Parashar

doi:10.1016/j.adro.2023.101179

Effect of Immunotherapy and Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Sequencing on Local Control and Survival in Patients With Spine Metastases

Adv Radiat Oncol. 2023 Jan 16;8(3):101179. doi: 10.1016/j.adro.2023.101179. eCollection 2023 May-Jun.

Authors

Jacob Eckstein¹, Emile Gogineni², Baho Sidiqi¹, Noah Lisser¹, Bhupesh Parashar¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Radiation Medicine, Zucker School of Medicine, Hofstra, Northwell Health, New York, New York.
² Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.

Abstract

Purpose: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is commonly used to treat spinal metastases in combination with immunotherapy (IT). The optimal sequencing of these modalities is unclear. This study aimed to investigate whether sequencing of IT and SBRT was associated with differences in local control (LC), overall survival (OS), and toxicity when treating spine metastases.

Methods and materials: All patients at our institution who received spine SBRT from 2010 to 2019 with systemic therapy data available were reviewed retrospectively. The primary endpoint was LC. Secondary endpoints were toxicity (fracture and radiation myelitis) and OS. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to determine whether IT sequencing (before versus after SBRT) and use of IT were associated with LC or OS.

Results: A total of 191 lesions in 128 patients met inclusion criteria with 50 (26%) lesions in 33 (26%) patients who received IT. Fourteen (11%) patients with 24 (13%) lesions received the first IT dose before SBRT, whereas 19 (15%) patients with 26 (14%) lesions received the first dose after SBRT. LC did not differ between lesions treated with IT before SBRT versus after SBRT (1 year 73% versus 81%, log rank = 0.275, P = .600). Fracture risk was not associated with IT timing (χ² = 0.137, P = .934) or receipt of IT (χ² = 0.508, P = .476), and no radiation myelitis events occurred. Median OS was 31.8 versus 6.6 months for the IT after SBRT versus IT before SBRT cohorts, respectively (log rank = 13.193, P < .001). On Cox univariate analysis and multivariate analysis, receipt of IT before SBRT and Karnofsky performance status <80 were associated with worse OS. IT treatment versus none was not associated with any difference in LC (log rank = 1.063, P = .303) or OS (log rank = 1.736, P = .188).

Conclusions: Sequencing of IT and SBRT was not associated with any difference in LC or toxicity, but delivering IT after SBRT versus before SBRT was associated with improved OS.