Linear accelerator-based single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery versus hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for intact and resected brain metastases up to 3 cm: A multi-institutional retrospective analysis.

IF 0.7 Q4 SURGERY Journal of radiosurgery and SBRT Pub Date : 2021-01-01
Brett H Diamond, Vikram Jairam, Shaharyar Zuberi, Jessie Y Li, Timothy J Marquis, Charles E Rutter, Henry S Park
{"title":"Linear accelerator-based single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery versus hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for intact and resected brain metastases up to 3 cm: A multi-institutional retrospective analysis.","authors":"Brett H Diamond,&nbsp;Vikram Jairam,&nbsp;Shaharyar Zuberi,&nbsp;Jessie Y Li,&nbsp;Timothy J Marquis,&nbsp;Charles E Rutter,&nbsp;Henry S Park","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery (SF-SRS) is typically used to provide local control of brain metastases. Recently, hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (HF-SRT) has been utilized for large brain metastases. Data comparing these two modalities are limited for brain metastases ≤3 cm.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with brain metastases receiving linear accelerator-based SF-SRS or HF-SRT were identified at three institutions. Local progression-free survival (LPFS), intracranial progression-free survival (ICPFS), overall survival (OS), and radionecrosis-free survival (RNFS) were determined from time of treatment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>108 patients (76 intact, 32 resected) with 184 brain metastases (142 intact, 42 resected) were included. There were no significant differences between SF-SRS and HF-SRT for intact metastases in 1-year LPFS (62.8% vs. 58.5%, p=0.631), ICPFS (56.9% vs. 55.3%, p=0.300), and OS (71.6% vs. 70.6%, p=0.096), or for resected metastases in 1-year LPFS (67.3% vs. 57.8%, p=0.288), ICPFS (64.8% vs. 57%, p=0.291), and OS (64.8% vs. 66.1%, p=0.603). There were also no significant differences in 1-year RNFS between SF-SRS and HF-SRT (92% vs. 92%, p=0.325).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There were no significant differences in LPFS, ICPFS, OS, and RNFS between SF-SRS and HF-SRT for brain metastases ≤3 cm suggesting SF-SRS may be preferred due to similar outcomes and reduced number of fractions.</p>","PeriodicalId":16917,"journal":{"name":"Journal of radiosurgery and SBRT","volume":"7 3","pages":"179-187"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8055233/pdf/rsbrt-7-187.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of radiosurgery and SBRT","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery (SF-SRS) is typically used to provide local control of brain metastases. Recently, hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (HF-SRT) has been utilized for large brain metastases. Data comparing these two modalities are limited for brain metastases ≤3 cm.

Methods: Patients with brain metastases receiving linear accelerator-based SF-SRS or HF-SRT were identified at three institutions. Local progression-free survival (LPFS), intracranial progression-free survival (ICPFS), overall survival (OS), and radionecrosis-free survival (RNFS) were determined from time of treatment.

Results: 108 patients (76 intact, 32 resected) with 184 brain metastases (142 intact, 42 resected) were included. There were no significant differences between SF-SRS and HF-SRT for intact metastases in 1-year LPFS (62.8% vs. 58.5%, p=0.631), ICPFS (56.9% vs. 55.3%, p=0.300), and OS (71.6% vs. 70.6%, p=0.096), or for resected metastases in 1-year LPFS (67.3% vs. 57.8%, p=0.288), ICPFS (64.8% vs. 57%, p=0.291), and OS (64.8% vs. 66.1%, p=0.603). There were also no significant differences in 1-year RNFS between SF-SRS and HF-SRT (92% vs. 92%, p=0.325).

Conclusions: There were no significant differences in LPFS, ICPFS, OS, and RNFS between SF-SRS and HF-SRT for brain metastases ≤3 cm suggesting SF-SRS may be preferred due to similar outcomes and reduced number of fractions.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于线性加速器的单部分立体定向放射手术与低部分立体定向放疗治疗完整和切除的3厘米脑转移瘤:一项多机构回顾性分析。
简介:单组分立体定向放射手术(SF-SRS)通常用于局部控制脑转移。最近,低分割立体定向放疗(HF-SRT)已被用于治疗大面积脑转移瘤。对于≤3cm的脑转移,比较这两种方式的数据有限。方法:在三家机构对接受基于线性加速器的SF-SRS或HF-SRT的脑转移患者进行鉴定。局部无进展生存期(LPFS)、颅内无进展生存期(ICPFS)、总生存期(OS)和无放射性坏死生存期(RNFS)从治疗时间开始测定。结果:108例患者(76例完整,32例切除),184例脑转移灶(142例完整,42例切除)。SF-SRS和HF-SRT对1年LPFS中完整转移灶(62.8% vs. 58.5%, p=0.631)、ICPFS (56.9% vs. 55.3%, p=0.300)和OS (71.6% vs. 70.6%, p=0.096),或1年LPFS中切除转移灶(67.3% vs. 57.8%, p=0.288)、ICPFS (64.8% vs. 57%, p=0.291)和OS (64.8% vs. 66.1%, p=0.603)的差异均无统计学意义。SF-SRS和HF-SRT的1年RNFS也无显著差异(92% vs. 92%, p=0.325)。结论:对于≤3cm的脑转移灶,SF-SRS与HF-SRT在LPFS、ICPFS、OS和RNFS方面均无显著差异,提示SF-SRS由于预后相似且分数较少,可能是首选。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
8.30%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A single center, inter-observer evaluation of vestibular schwannoma stereotactic radiosurgery and its dosimetric impact. Bilateral anterior cingulotomy with Gamma Knife radiosurgery: Another alternative for the treatment of non-oncologic intractable chronic pain. Cytoreductive single-fraction stereotactic radiation therapy prior to living donor transplantation for inoperable liver-confined metastatic rectal cancer. Emergency SBRT to trachea and carina for adenoid cystic carcinoma of the trachea with partial airway obstruction. Experience of Gamma Knife radiosurgery for treatment of brain metastases in pregnancy with literature review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1