BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Three doses were compared for local control of irradiated metastases, freedom from new brain metastases, and survival in patients receiving stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) alone for one to three newly diagnosed brain metastases. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 134 patients were assigned to three groups according to the SRS dose given to the margins of the lesions: 13-16 Gy (n = 33), 18 Gy (n = 18), and 20 Gy (n = 83). Additional potential prognostic factors were evaluated: age (≤ 60 vs. > 60 years), gender, Karnofsky Performance Scale score (70-80 vs. 90-100), tumor type (non-small-cell lung cancer vs. melanoma vs. others), number of brain metastases (1 vs. 2-3), lesion size (< 15 vs. ≥ 15 mm), extracranial metastases (no vs. yes), RPA class (1 vs. 2), and interval of cancer diagnosis to SRS (≤ 24 vs. > 24 months). RESULTS: For 13-16 Gy, 18 Gy, and 20 Gy, the 1-year local control rates were 31, 65, and 79%, respectively (p < 0.001). The SRS dose maintained significance on multivariate analysis (risk ratio: 2.25; 95% confidence interval: 1.56-3.29; p < 0.001). On intergroup comparisons of local control, 20 Gy was superior to 13-16 Gy (p < 0.001) but not to 18 Gy (p = 0.12); 18 Gy showed a strong trend toward better local control when compared with 13-16 Gy (p = 0.059). Freedom from new brain metastases (p = 0.57) and survival (p = 0.15) were not associated with SRS dose in the univariate analysis. CONCLUSION: SRS doses of 18 Gy and 20 Gy resulted in better local control than 13-16 Gy. However, 20 Gy and 18 Gy must be compared again in a larger cohort of patients. Freedom from new brain metastases and survival were not associated with SRS dose.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Three doses were compared for local control of irradiated metastases, freedom from new brain metastases, and survival in patients receiving stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) alone for one to three newly diagnosed brain metastases. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 134 patients were assigned to three groups according to the SRS dose given to the margins of the lesions: 13-16 Gy (n = 33), 18 Gy (n = 18), and 20 Gy (n = 83). Additional potential prognostic factors were evaluated: age (≤ 60 vs. > 60 years), gender, Karnofsky Performance Scale score (70-80 vs. 90-100), tumor type (non-small-cell lung cancer vs. melanoma vs. others), number of brain metastases (1 vs. 2-3), lesion size (< 15 vs. ≥ 15 mm), extracranial metastases (no vs. yes), RPA class (1 vs. 2), and interval of cancer diagnosis to SRS (≤ 24 vs. > 24 months). RESULTS: For 13-16 Gy, 18 Gy, and 20 Gy, the 1-year local control rates were 31, 65, and 79%, respectively (p < 0.001). The SRS dose maintained significance on multivariate analysis (risk ratio: 2.25; 95% confidence interval: 1.56-3.29; p < 0.001). On intergroup comparisons of local control, 20 Gy was superior to 13-16 Gy (p < 0.001) but not to 18 Gy (p = 0.12); 18 Gy showed a strong trend toward better local control when compared with 13-16 Gy (p = 0.059). Freedom from new brain metastases (p = 0.57) and survival (p = 0.15) were not associated with SRS dose in the univariate analysis. CONCLUSION: SRS doses of 18 Gy and 20 Gy resulted in better local control than 13-16 Gy. However, 20 Gy and 18 Gy must be compared again in a larger cohort of patients. Freedom from new brain metastases and survival were not associated with SRS dose.
Authors: Anna Likhacheva; Chelsea C Pinnix; Neil R Parikh; Pamela K Allen; Mary F McAleer; Max S Chiu; Erik P Sulman; Anita Mahajan; Nandita Guha-Thakurta; Sujit S Prabhu; Daniel P Cahill; Dershan Luo; Almon S Shiu; Paul D Brown; Eric L Chang Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-08-14 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: David M Marcus; Michael Lowe; Mohammad K Khan; David H Lawson; Ian R Crocker; Joseph W Shelton; Alisa Melton; Necia Maynard; Keith A Delman; Grant W Carlson; Monica Rizzo Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: Jaap D Zindler; George Rodrigues; Cornelis J A Haasbeek; Patricia F De Haan; Otto W M Meijer; Ben J Slotman; Frank J Lagerwaard Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2013-03-20 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Michael K Shehata; Byron Young; Brady Reid; Roy A Patchell; William St Clair; Jackie Sims; Michael Sanders; Ali Meigooni; Mohammed Mohiuddin; William F Regine Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Eric L Chang; Jeffrey S Wefel; Kenneth R Hess; Pamela K Allen; Frederick F Lang; David G Kornguth; Rebecca B Arbuckle; J Michael Swint; Almon S Shiu; Moshe H Maor; Christina A Meyers Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2009-10-02 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Paul J Black; Brandi R Page; John T Lucas; Ryan T Hughes; Adrian W Laxton; Stephen B Tatter; Michael T Munley; Michael D Chan Journal: J Radiosurg SBRT Date: 2015
Authors: Dirk Rades; Stefan Huttenlocher; Liesa Dziggel; Mai Trong Khoa; Pham Van Thai; Dagmar Hornung; Steven E Schild Journal: Lung Date: 2014-12-21 Impact factor: 2.584
Authors: J Rieber; E Tonndorf-Martini; O Schramm; B Rhein; S Stefanowicz; J Kappes; H Hoffmann; K Lindel; J Debus; S Rieken Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2016-07-04 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Kamran A Ahmed; Anders E Berglund; Eric A Welsh; Arash O Naghavi; Youngchul Kim; Michael Yu; Timothy J Robinson; Steven A Eschrich; Peter A S Johnstone; Javier F Torres-Roca Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 12.300