How are you taking part in this consultation?

You will not be able to change how you comment later.

You must be signed in to answer questions

    The content on this page is not current guidance and is only for the purposes of the consultation process.

    Summary of key evidence on radiofrequency ablation for palliation of painful spinal metastases

    Study 1 Yildizhan (2021)

    Study details

    Study type

    Retrospective analysis

    Country

    Turkey (single centre)

    Recruitment period

    2015-2020

    Study population and number

    N=66 patients with painful spinal metastases.

    RFA alone (n=26) compared with RFA +vertebroplasty (n=40)

    Sites: thoracic in 22, lumbar in 18; multiple metastasis in 20

    Age and sex

    Mean age 59.5 years, range 52 to 69 years); 100% female

    Patient selection criteria

    Inclusion criteria: patients above 18 years, with osteolytic vertebral metastasis, spinal involvement and neurologically stable, primary tumour under control, with analgesic-resistant pain, and with more than 3 months of life expectancy were included.

    Exclusion criteria: Patients with active primary tumours, neurologically unstable and previously received radiotherapy for the spine, and those in need of surgical decompression and instrumentation were excluded.

    Technique

    Imaging was done in all patients before the procedure. Percutaneous RFA was administered to the vertebrae infiltrated by the neoplastic lesions, under local anaesthesia and conscious sedation at an average temperature of 90°C for 2 to 4 min.

    In the RFA group, decompression surgery was performed in 10 patients with 50% collapse of the vertebral corpus or fragments in the spinal canal during 6 months.

    40 patients with vertebral metastases underwent vertebroplasty with polymethylmethacrylate radio-opaque bone cement injection after RFA.

    Follow up

    6 months

    Conflict of interest/source of funding

    None

    Analysis

    Follow-up issues: follow up was at 1, 3 and 6 months. Loss to follow up not reported.

    Study design issues: a single centre retrospective study with some risk of bias. Radiological images were assessed before and after the procedure. Pain was evaluated using VAS (on a scale 0-10) before and after the therapy and at follow up. Quality of life was assessed using the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire.

    Population issues: 26 patients had middle and posterior element fracture out of the corpus. Most common primary tumour was multiple myeloma and all patients had increased analgesic use before the procedure.

    Key efficacy findings

    Number of patients analysed: 66

    Pain reduction

    Mean VAS score (higher scores represented worst pain)

    Baseline

    After treatment

    1 month

    3 months

    6 months

    p value

    RFA alone group (n=26)

    8.33 ± 1.07

    4.80 ± 1.03

    3.67 ± 1.07

    4.50 ± 1.57

    4.42 ± 1.08

    P<0.001

    RFA + vertebroplasty (n=40)

    7.44 ± 1.06

    4.38 ± 1.00

    2.94 ± 1.04

    2.44 ± 1.61

    2.31 ± 1.42

    P<0.001

    The pain scores decreased at a rate of 59% in the RFA alone group and 83% in the RFA plus vertebroplasty group.

    VAS score comparison between the groups showed a significant decrease in pain in all patients from both groups (p<0.001). However, 8 patients in RFA alone group required analgesics at the end of the 3 months follow up.

    Health-related quality of life (HRQoL)

    Mean ODI score

    Baseline

    After treatment

    1 month

    3 months

    6 months

    p value

    RFA alone group (n=26)

    79.33±3.75

    66.33 ± 6.26

    62.28 ± 6.32

    54.67 ± 11.86

    29.67 ± 8/77

    P<0.001

    RFA + vertebroplasty (n=40)

    78.50 ± 5.20

    56.25 ± 9.66

    44.68 ± 10.34

    39.75 ± 16.09

    14.20 ± 12.32

    P<0.001

    70% of patients in the RFA alone group and 53% of patients in the RFA plus vertebroplasty group showed significant improvements in quality of life.

    ODI score comparison between the groups showed a significant improvement in QoL, with a lower degree of pain interfering with daily activities.

    Key safety findings

    RFA alone % (n)

    RFA+ vertebroplasty % (n)

    Death due to systemic problems (during follow up)

    N=6

    N=6

    Cement leakage from posterior element of the corpus vertebrae of the spinal canal (no further intervention needed)

    25% (4/40)

    Study 2 Proschek (2009)

    Study details

    Study type

    Prospective pilot study

    Country

    Germany

    Recruitment period

    Not reported

    Study population and number

    N=16 patients with painful spinal metastases of breast cancer.

    Site: vertebral body of the lumbar and thoracic spine

    Average tumour size: 1.9 cm (range 1.2 to 3.5 cm)

    8 treated with RFA alone and 8 treated with RFA plus bone cement.

    Age and sex

    mean age 59.5 years, range 52 to 69 years); 100% female

    Patient selection criteria

    Inclusion criteria: pain (refractory to previous treatment) and imminent fracture or instability of the bone due to rapid tumour growth, absence of neurological deficits and an increase of the pain during movement or excessive stress.

    Exclusion criteria: any vertebral fractures, radicular neurological symptoms, coagulation disturbances, rheumatic diseases, allergy to local anaesthesia, pregnancy and any infections (e.g. spondylitis, spondylodiscitis).

    Technique

    Percutaneous RFA of bone tumour with Celon pro surge and Celon power system.

    This is an outpatient procedure done with CT guidance and under local anaesthesia. A bipolar and impedance-controlled radiofrequency system was used. After RFA, bone cement was injected into the necrosis cavity in half of the patients (n=8).

    Follow up

    Mean 20.4 months (range 836).

    Conflict of interest/source of funding

    Not reported

    Analysis

    Follow-up issues: follow up was at 1 week and every 6 months after the procedure. Loss to follow up not reported.

    Study design issues: a single centre prospective small pilot study with some risk of bias. Radiological images were assessed by an independent radiologist before the procedure. Pain was evaluated by physician and patients themselves using VAS (on a scale 0-10) before, 6 hours after the therapy and at follow up. Quality of life was assessed using the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire.

    Key efficacy findings

    Number of patients analysed: 16

    Pain reduction

    Assessed using VAS. Higher scores represented worst pain.

    Baseline

    After treatment

    15-36 months

    Mean reduction of pain%

    RFA group (n=8)

    Mean 7.6 (range 6- 10 points)

    5.5 (range 3-8 points; p=0.018)

    4.0 (range 2-6 points; p<0.008)

    49.4%

    RFA + cement (n=8)

    Mean 7.9 (7-10 points)

    5.0 (range 3-7 points; p=0.005)

    3.5 (range 1-5; p<0.005)

    53.9%

    Progression or recurrence of vertebral metastases

    Imaging showed a complete ablation of the bone tumour in all patients. None of the patients had a local recurrence after treatment with RFA alone or RFA in combination with vertebroplasty at follow up.

    Health-related quality of life (HRQoL)

    Assessed using Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODI)

    Baseline

    After treatment

    3-6 months

    15-36 months

    RFA group (n=8)

    64% (range 38-84%)

    34% (range 28-38; p=0.014)

    33%, range 23-38%; p=0.06

    -

    RFA + vertebroplasty (n=8)

    66% points (range 39-86%)

    36% (range 31- 39%; p=0.003)

    -

    35%, range 26-38%; p=0.071

    There were no statistically significant differences regarding pain relief (p=0.074) or improvement in quality of life (p=0.917) between both groups,

    Patients in both groups (n=16) had a significant reduction of pain (p=0.0065) and an improvement in quality of life (p=0.043).

    Key safety findings

    All procedures were performed without side-effects and complications.

    Study 3 Nakatsuka 2009

    Study details

    Study type

    Prospective case series

    Country

    Japan

    Recruitment period

    2005-2007

    Study population and number

    n=10 patients with painful spinal tumours

    Lesions were located mainly in lumbar or thoracic area. Metastases origin from breast, lung, and renal cancers. previous treatments (n=4) chemotherapy, radiation therapy, surgery, or a combination.

    Tumour size: mean 4.9 cm (range 3-8 cm); The distance between tumour and spinal cord mean, 2.4 mm (1-4mm).

    location of tumour: thoracic (3), lumbar (6), sacral (1). All invaded the posterior cortex of the vertebral body or pedicle and were facing spinal canal.

    Age and sex

    Mean age 61 years; 60% male.

    Patient selection criteria

    Inclusion criteria: a painful spinal tumour refractory to previous medical treatment with radiation therapy and/or chemotherapy and a distance of 1 cm or less between the spinal tumour invaded the posterior cortex of the vertebral body or pedicle and spinal cord.

    Exclusion criteria a Zubrod performance status of 4, the presence of symptomatic spinal cord compression, or a platelet count of less than 50,000/lL or an international normalized ratio greater than 1.5.

    Technique

    Patients were treated with monopolar RFA and had cement augmentation. RFA was done under conscious sedation and local anaesthesia. Cool-tip RFA ablation system was used.

    The thermocouple was placed in the spinal canal (epidural space in 6, subarachnoid space in 4) under CT fluoroscopic guidance. On average RFA was applied for 8 minutes. Monitoring of the spinal canal temperature was done during the procedure. Temperature in tumour was mean 77 degrees. When the spinal canal temperature reached 45 degree C, RFA was immediately stopped (in 9). In 1 patient it suddenly rose to 48 degree C. When a tumour was located in the vertebral body and greater than 3 cm, bone cement was injected immediately after RFA to minimize the risk of future fracture in 6 patients.

    Follow up

    Mean 4.5 months (range 2.7 to 7.1 months)

    Conflict of interest/source of funding

    Not reported.

    Analysis

    Follow-up issues: complete follow up.

    Study design issues: single centre prospective study with very small sample and high risk of bias; baseline lab tests and imaging was done. One author with experience performed all procedures. Patient medical records were reviewed to assess major complications.

    Study population issues: patients had different previous treatments for various primary lesions.

    Key efficacy findings

    Number of patients analysed: 10

    Technical success (procedure done without major complications) 100%
    Pain relief (assessed using VAS score at 1 week and every 4 weeks after RFA) Higher scores represented worst pain.
    Clinical success (defined as a fall in the VAS score of at least 2 point compared with baseline) 100% within 1 week.

    Intervention

    Baseline

    Post-operative

    Mean difference (P value)

    Mean pain reduction %

    RFA (all patients)

    7.5

    2.7 (1 week)

    4.8 (0.00005)

    64

    RFA alone (n=4)

    4.3

    1.7 (1 week)

    2.6 (0.0004)

    60

    RFA + cement augmentation (n=6)

    6.6

    1.7 (1 week)

    4.9 (0.003)

    74

    Local pain relief was reported in 90% (9/10) during survival period. All patients died at a mean follow up of 4.5 months (range 2.7 to 7.1). One patient reported recurrent pain 2 months after treatment. Two patients reported newly developed pain 2 months after treatment.

    Key safety findings

    Transient neural damage (grade II) related to high temperature rise (48 degrees C) during RFA was reported in 1 patient. This was resolved 2 days after the procedure with intravenous administration of steroids.

    Study 4 Gazis 2004

    Study details

    Study type

    Prospective cohort study

    Country

    Germany (single centre)

    Recruitment period

    2006-2009

    Study population and number

    n=36 patients with advanced tumours with primary or secondary tumour involvement of spine and near neurological structures.

    location of tumour: lumbar 22, thoracic 16, sacral 2, cervical 1

    Age and sex

    Mean age 67.8 years (range 40 to 84 years); 60% male.

    Patient selection criteria

    Inclusion criteria: patients with disease progression despite previous surgery, maximal chemotherapy, maximal radiation and hormone therapy, lack of highly invasive surgical option, severe local tumour pain, insufficiently responsive to opiates and other analgesics, intervertebral tumour spread, risk of paraplegia or fracture because of tumour progression, locomotor disability because of a local tumour process, and osteolytic and mixed metastases with palliative intention.

    Exclusion criteria: presence of intradural and intramedullary tumours, risk of bleeding (acetylsalicylic acid, anticoagulants), acute general infections, local infections in the target zone, and allergies against one of the periinterventional applied drugs.

    Technique

    Patients were treated with bipolar RFA (39 lesions) under general anaesthesia by 3 neuroradiologists. CelonLab Power and Celon Aquaflow III ablation systems were used. RFA power was limited to 50 watts. Average power was 27.28 watts (range 9.51 to 36.58 watts). Average energy needed was 33.46 kJ (varied from 9.95 to 85 kJ).

    Follow up

    Not reported

    Conflict of interest/source of funding

    None

    Analysis

    Follow-up issues: loss to follow up not reported.

    Study design issues: single centre prospective study with high risk of bias. Retrospective analysis. Primary outcome was reduction of the tumour.

    Study population issues: most patients had poor prognosis because of late stage tumours.

    Key efficacy findings

    Number of patients analysed: 36

    Duration of the procedure was mean 22.6 minutes (range 12 to 43 minutes).

    The extent of the ablation zones did not cross the planned dorsal and ventral boundaries, avoiding heating of unwanted areas.

    Pain

    At discharge, pain reduction was observed in 52.8% (19/36) patients. No changes were seen in 36.1% (13/36) cases and worsening of pain was documented in 11% (4/36) of patients. Because of advanced tumours with multiple osseus metastases, pain could not always be attributed to a single lesion and it was not clear if change in pain was due to the RFA procedure.