Literature DB >> 27523439

A comparison of clinical and radiologic outcomes between frame-based and frameless stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases.

Nathan R Bennion1, Timothy Malouff2, Vivek Verma2, Kyle Denniston2, Abhijeet Bhirud2, Weining Zhen2, Andrew Wahl2, Chi Lin2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Modern experiences in stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) report noninvasive frameless techniques as an effective alternative to frame-based SRS. Frameless techniques potentially increase positional uncertainty and planning target volume margins are frequently used. Here, we compare rates of local control and radiation necrosis in frameless versus frame-based SRS. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ninety-eight patients (170 lesions) with radiologic and clinical follow-up were analyzed. Group 1 contained 34 patients (61 lesions) immobilized with an invasive stereotactic frame. Group 2 had 64 patients (109 lesions) immobilized with a frameless SRS mask. Patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were recorded, as were intervals to local recurrence and radiation necrosis (asymptomatic and symptomatic).
RESULTS: Median patient age was 59 years (range, 25-89), and Karnofsky performance scale was 80 (range, 50-100). Median radiologic and clinical follow-up was 6.5 months (range, 0.7-44.3) and 7 months (range, 0.7-45.7). A median of 2 tumors were treated per course (range, 1-5) with a median dose of 18 Gy (range, 13-24 Gy). The median time to local failure was not reached, and Kaplan-Meier estimates of local failure were not statistically significant between groups (P = .303). Actuarial 6-month local failure rates were 7.2% in group 1 and 12.6% in group 2 (P = .295), with 12-month local failure rates of 14.5% and 26.8% (P = .185), respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in symptomatic (P = .391) or asymptomatic (P = .149) radiation necrosis. Six-month radiation necrosis was 0% in group 1 and 1.6% in group 2 (P = .311) with 12-month rates of 20.2% and 3.8%, respectively (P = .059). Median time to necrosis was not reached in group 1, but was 44 months in group 2.
CONCLUSIONS: Frameless SRS demonstrates clinical outcomes comparable to frame-based techniques with respect to local failure and radiation necrosis.
Copyright © 2016 American Society for Radiation Oncology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27523439     DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2016.05.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pract Radiat Oncol        ISSN: 1879-8500


  4 in total

1.  Towards frameless maskless SRS through real-time 6DoF robotic motion compensation.

Authors:  Andrew H Belcher; Xinmin Liu; Steven Chmura; Kamil Yenice; Rodney D Wiersma
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2017-11-13       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 2.  Frameless Image-Guided Radiosurgery for Multiple Brain Metastasis Using VMAT: A Review and an Institutional Experience.

Authors:  Samir Abdallah Hanna; Anselmo Mancini; Alisson Henrique Dal Col; Rie Nadia Asso; Wellington Furtado Pimenta Neves-Junior
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2019-08-07       Impact factor: 6.244

3.  Tackling brain metastases from lung cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Authors:  Naveen Mummudi; Anil Tibdewal; Tejpal Gupta; Vijay Patil; Kumar Prabhash; Jai Prakash Agarwal
Journal:  Cancer Rep (Hoboken)       Date:  2020-09-03

Review 4.  Single- and Multifraction Stereotactic Radiosurgery Dose/Volume Tolerances of the Brain.

Authors:  Michael T Milano; Jimm Grimm; Andrzej Niemierko; Scott G Soltys; Vitali Moiseenko; Kristin J Redmond; Ellen Yorke; Arjun Sahgal; Jinyu Xue; Anand Mahadevan; Alexander Muacevic; Lawrence B Marks; Lawrence R Kleinberg
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2020-09-11       Impact factor: 8.013

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.