Incidence of pain flare in radiation treatment of bone metastases: A literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Pain flare is a temporary increase in pain and is a potential side effect of radiotherapy treatment. However, its incidence has been reported only in recent studies, and with great variability. A few studies have reported on the use of dexamethasone as a prophylactic agent in the prevention of pain flare. The objective of this study is to present a review of the available literature regarding the incidence of pain flare and use of dexamethasone as a preventative measure. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in PubMed using subject keywords including: "radiation therapy", "stereotactic radiation therapy", "bone metastases", "pain flare", and "dexamethasone". The search was limited to English only but not restricted to any time period. Additionally, a search was also conducted in the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) 2014 book of published abstracts. Inclusion criteria were primary studies published with full text and/or abstracts only. Letters to the editor were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies were selected, two of which were abstracts published by ASTRO in 2014. Seven articles investigated pain flare and/or dexamethasone use for conventional external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) while the remaining four investigated stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Pain flare incidence ranged from 2 to 44% for EBRT and 10 to 68% in SBRT. The use of dexamethasone also showed to be effective in both the prophylaxis and treatment of pain flare. CONCLUSIONS: Pain flare has been established as an acute toxicity of both EBRT and SBRT, although its incidence is widely variable due to differences in data collection. The use of dexamethasone in the prophylaxis of pain flare is efficacious. Future studies are required in order to both optimize the reporting of pain and the dexamethasone regimens in the prevention of pain flare.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".