PURPOSE: Whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) is the standard of care after resection of a brain metastasis. However, concern regarding possible neurocognitive effects and the lack of survival benefit with this approach has led to the use of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) to the resection cavity in place of WBRT. We report our initial experience using an image-guided linear accelerator-based frameless stereotactic system and review the technical issues in applying this technique. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We retrospectively reviewed the setup accuracy, treatment outcome, and patterns of failure of the first 18 consecutive cases treated at Brigham and Women's Hospital. The target volume was the resection cavity without a margin excluding the surgical track. RESULTS: The median number of brain metastases per patient was 1 (range, 1-3). The median planning target volume was 3.49 mL. The median prescribed dose was 18 Gy (range, 15-18 Gy) with normalization ranging from 68% to 85%. In all cases, 99% of the planning target volume was covered by the prescribed dose. The median conformity index was 1.6 (range, 1.41-1.92). The SRS was delivered with submillimeter accuracy. At a median follow-up of 12.7 months, local control was achieved in 16/18 cavities treated. True local recurrence occurred in 2 patients. No marginal failures occurred. Distant recurrence occurred in 6/17 patients. Median time to any failure was 7.4 months. No Grade 3 or higher toxicity was recorded. A long interval between initial cancer diagnosis and the development of brain metastasis was the only factor that trended toward a significant association with the absence of recurrence (local or distant) (log-rank p = 0.097). CONCLUSIONS: Frameless stereotactic irradiation of the resection cavity after surgery for a brain metastasis is a safe and accurate technique that offers durable local control and defers the use of WBRT in select patients. This technique should be tested in larger prospective studies.
PURPOSE: Whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) is the standard of care after resection of a brain metastasis. However, concern regarding possible neurocognitive effects and the lack of survival benefit with this approach has led to the use of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) to the resection cavity in place of WBRT. We report our initial experience using an image-guided linear accelerator-based frameless stereotactic system and review the technical issues in applying this technique. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We retrospectively reviewed the setup accuracy, treatment outcome, and patterns of failure of the first 18 consecutive cases treated at Brigham and Women's Hospital. The target volume was the resection cavity without a margin excluding the surgical track. RESULTS: The median number of brain metastases per patient was 1 (range, 1-3). The median planning target volume was 3.49 mL. The median prescribed dose was 18 Gy (range, 15-18 Gy) with normalization ranging from 68% to 85%. In all cases, 99% of the planning target volume was covered by the prescribed dose. The median conformity index was 1.6 (range, 1.41-1.92). The SRS was delivered with submillimeter accuracy. At a median follow-up of 12.7 months, local control was achieved in 16/18 cavities treated. True local recurrence occurred in 2 patients. No marginal failures occurred. Distant recurrence occurred in 6/17 patients. Median time to any failure was 7.4 months. No Grade 3 or higher toxicity was recorded. A long interval between initial cancer diagnosis and the development of brain metastasis was the only factor that trended toward a significant association with the absence of recurrence (local or distant) (log-rank p = 0.097). CONCLUSIONS: Frameless stereotactic irradiation of the resection cavity after surgery for a brain metastasis is a safe and accurate technique that offers durable local control and defers the use of WBRT in select patients. This technique should be tested in larger prospective studies.
Authors: Che-Chuan Wang; Scott R Floyd; Chin-Hong Chang; Peter C Warnke; Chung-Ching Chio; Ekkehard M Kasper; Anand Mahadevan; Eric T Wong; Clark C Chen Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2011-08-31 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Vikren Sarkar; Adam Paxton; Martin W Szegedi; Hui Zhao; Long Huang; Geoff Nelson; Yu-Huei Jessica Huang; Fanchi Su; Prema Rassiah-Szegedi; Bill J Salter Journal: J Radiosurg SBRT Date: 2018
Authors: Tavish Nanda; Andrew Yaeh; Cheng-Chia Wu; Ashish Jani; Shumaila Saad; Yasir H Qureshi; Keith A Cauley; Jeraldine Lesser; Simon K Cheng; Steven R Isaacson; Michael B Sisti; Jeffrey N Bruce; Guy M McKhann; Sameer A Sheth; Andrew B Lassman; Tony J C Wang Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2017-11-23 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Kamran A Ahmed; Jessica M Freilich; Yazan Abuodeh; Nicholas Figura; Neha Patel; Siriporn Sarangkasiri; Prakash Chinnaiyan; Hsiang-Hsuan Michael Yu; Arnold B Etame; Nikhil G Rao Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2014-03-07 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Cameron Brennan; T Jonathan Yang; Patrick Hilden; Zhigang Zhang; Kelvin Chan; Yoshiya Yamada; Timothy A Chan; Stella C Lymberis; Ashwatha Narayana; Viviane Tabar; Philip H Gutin; Åse Ballangrud; Eric Lis; Kathryn Beal Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-01-01 Impact factor: 7.038