OBJECT: The authors compared the effectiveness of single-session (SS) and multisession (MS) stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for the treatment of spinal metastases. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective review of the clinical outcomes of 348 lesions in 228 patients treated with the CyberKnife radiosurgery at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute and Georgetown University Medical Center. One hundred ninety-five lesions were treated using an SS treatment regimen (mean 16.3 Gy), whereas 153 lesions were treated using an MS approach (mean 20.6 Gy in 3 fractions, 23.8 Gy in 4 fractions, and 24.5 Gy in 5 fractions). The primary end point was pain control. Secondary end points included neurological deficit improvement, toxicity, local tumor control, need for retreatment, and overall survival. RESULTS: Pain control was significantly improved in the SS group (SSG) for all measured time points up to 1 year posttreatment (100% vs 88%, p = 0.003). Rates of toxicity and neurological deficit improvement were not statistically different. Local tumor control was significantly better in the MS group (MSG) up to 2 years posttreatment (96% vs 70%, p = 0.001). Similarly, the need for retreatment was significantly lower in the MSG (1% vs 13%, p < 0.001). One-year overall survival was significantly greater in the MSG than the SSG (63% vs 46%, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Single-session and MS SRS regimens are both effective in the treatment of spinal metastases. While an SS approach provides greater early pain control and equivalent toxicity, an MS approach achieves greater tumor control and less need for retreatment in long-term survivors.
OBJECT: The authors compared the effectiveness of single-session (SS) and multisession (MS) stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for the treatment of spinal metastases. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective review of the clinical outcomes of 348 lesions in 228 patients treated with the CyberKnife radiosurgery at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute and Georgetown University Medical Center. One hundred ninety-five lesions were treated using an SS treatment regimen (mean 16.3 Gy), whereas 153 lesions were treated using an MS approach (mean 20.6 Gy in 3 fractions, 23.8 Gy in 4 fractions, and 24.5 Gy in 5 fractions). The primary end point was pain control. Secondary end points included neurological deficit improvement, toxicity, local tumor control, need for retreatment, and overall survival. RESULTS:Pain control was significantly improved in the SS group (SSG) for all measured time points up to 1 year posttreatment (100% vs 88%, p = 0.003). Rates of toxicity and neurological deficit improvement were not statistically different. Local tumor control was significantly better in the MS group (MSG) up to 2 years posttreatment (96% vs 70%, p = 0.001). Similarly, the need for retreatment was significantly lower in the MSG (1% vs 13%, p < 0.001). One-year overall survival was significantly greater in the MSG than the SSG (63% vs 46%, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Single-session and MS SRS regimens are both effective in the treatment of spinal metastases. While an SS approach provides greater early pain control and equivalent toxicity, an MS approach achieves greater tumor control and less need for retreatment in long-term survivors.
Authors: Kristin J Redmond; Simon S Lo; Scott G Soltys; Yoshiya Yamada; Igor J Barani; Paul D Brown; Eric L Chang; Peter C Gerszten; Samuel T Chao; Robert J Amdur; Antonio A F De Salles; Matthias Guckenberger; Bin S Teh; Jason Sheehan; Charles R Kersh; Michael G Fehlings; Moon-Jun Sohn; Ung-Kyu Chang; Samuel Ryu; Iris C Gibbs; Arjun Sahgal Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2016-11-11
Authors: Frederick Mantel; Stefan Glatz; André Toussaint; Michael Flentje; Matthias Guckenberger Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-06-27 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Arjun Sahgal; Eshetu G Atenafu; Sam Chao; Ameen Al-Omair; Nicholas Boehling; Ehsan H Balagamwala; Marcelo Cunha; Isabelle Thibault; Lilyana Angelov; Paul Brown; John Suh; Laurence D Rhines; Michael G Fehlings; Eric Chang Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-08-19 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Zain A Husain; Isabelle Thibault; Daniel Letourneau; Lijun Ma; Harald Keller; John Suh; Veronica Chiang; Eric L Chang; Raja K Rampersaud; James Perry; David A Larson; Arjun Sahgal Journal: CNS Oncol Date: 2013-05
Authors: Varun Puvanesarajah; Sheng-Fu Larry Lo; Nafi Aygun; Jason A Liauw; Ignacio Jusué-Torres; Ioan A Lina; Uri Hadelsberg; Benjamin D Elder; Ali Bydon; Chetan Bettegowda; Daniel M Sciubba; Jean-Paul Wolinsky; Daniele Rigamonti; Lawrence R Kleinberg; Ziya L Gokaslan; Timothy F Witham; Kristin J Redmond; Michael Lim Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2015-07-31
Authors: Garrett Jensen; Chad Tang; Kenneth R Hess; Andrew J Bishop; Hubert Y Pan; Jing Li; James N Yang; Nizar M Tannir; Behrang Amini; Claudio Tatsui; Laurence Rhines; Paul D Brown; Amol J Ghia Journal: J Radiosurg SBRT Date: 2017
Authors: Maha Saada Jawad; Jun Zhou; Joe G Harb; J Ben Wilkinson; Shannon K Prausa; Jennifer Wloch; Daniel J Krauss; Daniel Fahim; Di Yan; Inga S Grills Journal: J Radiosurg SBRT Date: 2015