BACKGROUND: The role of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for recurrent glioblastoma and the radionecrosis risk in this setting remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: To perform a large retrospective study to help inform proper indications, efficacy, and anticipated complications of SRS for recurrent glioblastoma. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent Gamma Knife SRS between 1991 and 2013. We used the partitioning deletion/substitution/addition algorithm to identify potential predictor covariate cut points and Kaplan-Meier and proportional hazards modeling to identify factors associated with post-SRS and postdiagnosis survival. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-four glioblastoma patients (median age, 54.1 years) underwent SRS a median of 8.7 months after initial diagnosis. Seventy-five percent had 1 treatment target (range, 1-6), and median target volume and prescriptions were 7.0 cm 3 (range, 0.3-39.0 cm 3 ) and 16.0 Gy (range, 10-22 Gy), respectively. Median overall survival was 10.6 months after SRS and 19.1 months after diagnosis. Kaplan-Meier and multivariable modeling revealed that younger age at SRS, higher prescription dose, and longer interval between original surgery and SRS are significantly associated with improved post-SRS survival. Forty-six patients (26%) underwent salvage craniotomy after SRS, with 63% showing radionecrosis or mixed tumor/necrosis vs 35% showing purely recurrent tumor. The necrosis/mixed group had lower mean isodose prescription compared with the tumor group (16.2 vs 17.8 Gy; P = .003) and larger mean treatment volume (10.0 vs 5.4 cm 3 ; P = .009). CONCLUSION: Gamma Knife may benefit a subset of focally recurrent patients, particularly those who are younger with smaller recurrences. Higher prescriptions are associated with improved post-SRS survival and do not seem to have greater risk of symptomatic treatment effect.
BACKGROUND: The role of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for recurrent glioblastoma and the radionecrosis risk in this setting remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: To perform a large retrospective study to help inform proper indications, efficacy, and anticipated complications of SRS for recurrent glioblastoma. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent Gamma Knife SRS between 1991 and 2013. We used the partitioning deletion/substitution/addition algorithm to identify potential predictor covariate cut points and Kaplan-Meier and proportional hazards modeling to identify factors associated with post-SRS and postdiagnosis survival. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-four glioblastomapatients (median age, 54.1 years) underwent SRS a median of 8.7 months after initial diagnosis. Seventy-five percent had 1 treatment target (range, 1-6), and median target volume and prescriptions were 7.0 cm 3 (range, 0.3-39.0 cm 3 ) and 16.0 Gy (range, 10-22 Gy), respectively. Median overall survival was 10.6 months after SRS and 19.1 months after diagnosis. Kaplan-Meier and multivariable modeling revealed that younger age at SRS, higher prescription dose, and longer interval between original surgery and SRS are significantly associated with improved post-SRS survival. Forty-six patients (26%) underwent salvage craniotomy after SRS, with 63% showing radionecrosis or mixed tumor/necrosis vs 35% showing purely recurrent tumor. The necrosis/mixed group had lower mean isodose prescription compared with the tumor group (16.2 vs 17.8 Gy; P = .003) and larger mean treatment volume (10.0 vs 5.4 cm 3 ; P = .009). CONCLUSION: Gamma Knife may benefit a subset of focally recurrent patients, particularly those who are younger with smaller recurrences. Higher prescriptions are associated with improved post-SRS survival and do not seem to have greater risk of symptomatic treatment effect.
Authors: Robert E Elliott; Erik C Parker; Stephen C Rush; Stephen P Kalhorn; Yaron A Moshel; Ashwatha Narayana; Bernadine Donahue; John G Golfinos Journal: World Neurosurg Date: 2011 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.104
Authors: Anita Mahajan; Ian E McCutcheon; Dima Suki; Eric L Chang; Samuel J Hassenbusch; Jeffrey S Weinberg; Almon Shiu; Moshe H Maor; Shiao Y Woo Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Ufuk Abacioglu; Hale B Caglar; Perran F Yumuk; Zuleyha Akgun; Beste M Atasoy; Meric Sengoz Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2010-09-29 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Orin Bloch; Seunggu J Han; Soonmee Cha; Matthew Z Sun; Manish K Aghi; Michael W McDermott; Mitchel S Berger; Andrew T Parsa Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2012-10-05 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Seung Won Choi; Kyung Rae Cho; Jung Won Choi; Doo-Sik Kong; Ho Jun Seol; Do-Hyun Nam; Jung-Il Lee Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2019-11-08 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Adomas Bunevicius; Stylianos Pikis; Douglas Kondziolka; Dev N Patel; Kenneth Bernstein; Erik P Sulman; Cheng-Chia Lee; Huai-Che Yang; Violaine Delabar; David Mathieu; Christopher P Cifarelli; David E Arsanious; Basem A Dahshan; Joshua S Weir; Herwin Speckter; Angel Mota; Manjul Tripathi; Narendra Kumar; Ronald E Warnick; Selcuk Peker; Yavuz Samanci; Gene Barnett; Farid El Hefnawi; Ghusn Al Sideiri; Jason Sheehan Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2021-11-19 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Antonio Dono; Mark Amsbaugh; Magda Martir; Richard H Smilie; Roy F Riascos; Jay-Jiguang Zhu; Sigmund Hsu; Dong H Kim; Nitin Tandon; Leomar Y Ballester; Angel I Blanco; Yoshua Esquenazi Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2021-01-25 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Alireza Feli; Shima Jazayeri; Mohammad Ali Bitaraf; Masoud Solaymani Dodaran; Karim Parastouei; Mohammad Javad Hosseinzadeh-Attar Journal: Asian Pac J Cancer Prev Date: 2017-07-27