Retrospective study demonstrates high hemostatic efficacy of single-fraction 8 Gy radiotherapy in advanced cancer with tumor bleeding, suggesting a valuable palliative treatment option.
Purpose The efficacy of single-fraction 8 Gy radiotherapy (RT) for achieving hemostasis remains unclear. In this study, we assessed (1) hemostatic efficacy, (2) rebleeding, and (3) factors related to hemostatic efficacy and rebleeding associated with single-fraction 8 Gy RT. Materials and methods Patients with tumor bleeding who received single-fraction 8 Gy RT between January 2020 and December 2024 were retrospectively examined. Factors associated with hemostasis and rebleeding (recurrence of bleeding signs/symptoms, need for red blood cell [RBC] transfusion or salvage treatment after confirmation of hemostasis or decreasing hemoglobin levels) were assessed. Results A total of 90 lesions in 82 patients were examined. The median follow-up time after the administration of RT treatment was 80 days (interquartile range [IQR], 35–206 days; range, 7–776 days). The overall hemostatic ratio of lesions within 30 days (= 30-day hemostatic response rate) was 68.9%. In an exploratory analysis, gastroduodenal (gastrointestinal [GI]-gastroduodenal) bleeding showed a higher 30-day hemostatic response than GI-non-gastroduodenal and non-GI sites (80.4% vs. 56.8%; odds ratio, 3.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12–9.09; p = 0.02). Additionally, among evaluable patients with or without rebleeding ( n = 52), the median time to rebleeding after hemostasis was 102 days (95% CI, 69–196 days). The cumulative rebleeding rates at 30 and 60 days after hemostasis were 11.8% and 24.1%, respectively. Conclusions Although this study includes patients with different cancer types, bleeding sites, and treatment backgrounds, single-fraction 8 Gy RT demonstrated potential hemostatic benefit for tumor bleeding in the palliative setting. Our findings should be interpreted cautiously because of the retrospective nature of this study.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Makita et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: