Christopher P Cifarelli1,2, Stefanie Brehmer3, John Austin Vargo4, Joshua D Hack5, Klaus Henning Kahl6, Gustavo Sarria-Vargas7, Frank A Giordano7. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, West Virginia University, 1 Medical Center Drive, Suite 4300, Morgantown, WV, 26505, USA. cpcifarelli@hsc.wvu.edu. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA. cpcifarelli@hsc.wvu.edu. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, UPMC, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The ideal delivery of radiation to the surgical cavity of brain metastases (BMs) remains the subject of debate. Risks of local failure (LF) and radiation necrosis (RN) have prompted a reappraisal of the timing and/or modality of this critical component of BM management. IORT delivered at the time of resection for BMs requiring surgery offers the potential for improved local control (LC) afforded by the elimination of delay in time to initiation of radiation following surgery, decreased uncertainty in target delineation, and the possibility of dose escalation beyond that seen in stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). This study provides a retrospective analysis with identification of potential predictors of outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective data was collected on patients treated with IORT immediately following surgical resection of BMs at three institutions according to the approval of individual IRBs. All patients were treated with 50kV portable linear accelerator using spherical applicators ranging from 1.5 to 4.0 cm. Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS with endpoints of LC, DBC, incidence of RN, and overall survival (OS) and p < 0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: 54 patients were treated with IORT with a median age of 64 years. The most common primary diagnosis was non-small cell lung cancer (40%) with the most common location in the frontal lobe (38%). Median follow-up was 7.2 months and 1-year LC, DBC, and OS were 88%, 58%, and 73%, respectively. LMD was identified in 2 patients (3%) and RN present in 4 patients (7%). The only predictor of LC was extent of resection with 1-year LC of 94% for GTR versus 62% for STR (p = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: IORT is a safe and effective means of delivering adjuvant radiation to the BM resection cavities with high rates of LC and low incidence of RN. Further studies are warranted directly comparing LC outcomes to SRS.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The ideal delivery of radiation to the surgical cavity of brain metastases (BMs) remains the subject of debate. Risks of local failure (LF) and radiation necrosis (RN) have prompted a reappraisal of the timing and/or modality of this critical component of BM management. IORT delivered at the time of resection for BMs requiring surgery offers the potential for improved local control (LC) afforded by the elimination of delay in time to initiation of radiation following surgery, decreased uncertainty in target delineation, and the possibility of dose escalation beyond that seen in stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). This study provides a retrospective analysis with identification of potential predictors of outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective data was collected on patients treated with IORT immediately following surgical resection of BMs at three institutions according to the approval of individual IRBs. All patients were treated with 50kV portable linear accelerator using spherical applicators ranging from 1.5 to 4.0 cm. Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS with endpoints of LC, DBC, incidence of RN, and overall survival (OS) and p < 0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: 54 patients were treated with IORT with a median age of 64 years. The most common primary diagnosis was non-small cell lung cancer (40%) with the most common location in the frontal lobe (38%). Median follow-up was 7.2 months and 1-year LC, DBC, and OS were 88%, 58%, and 73%, respectively. LMD was identified in 2 patients (3%) and RN present in 4 patients (7%). The only predictor of LC was extent of resection with 1-year LC of 94% for GTR versus 62% for STR (p = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: IORT is a safe and effective means of delivering adjuvant radiation to the BM resection cavities with high rates of LC and low incidence of RN. Further studies are warranted directly comparing LC outcomes to SRS.
Authors: R A Patchell; P A Tibbs; J W Walsh; R J Dempsey; Y Maruyama; R J Kryscio; W R Markesbery; J S Macdonald; B Young Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1990-02-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Frank A Giordano; Stefanie Brehmer; Bettina Mürle; Grit Welzel; Elena Sperk; Anke Keller; Yasser Abo-Madyan; Elisabeth Scherzinger; Sven Clausen; Frank Schneider; Carsten Herskind; Martin Glas; Marcel Seiz-Rosenhagen; Christoph Groden; Daniel Hänggi; Peter Schmiedek; Bahman Emami; Luis Souhami; Kevin Petrecca; Frederik Wenz Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Jason Hsieh; Paul Elson; Balint Otvos; Jonathan Rose; Christopher Loftus; Gazanfar Rahmathulla; Lilyana Angelov; Gene H Barnett; Robert J Weil; Michael A Vogelbaum Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Jeffrey I Traylor; Ahmed Habib; Rajan Patel; Matthew Muir; Ron Gadot; Tina Briere; Debra N Yeboa; Jing Li; Ganesh Rao Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2019-07-16 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Lesley A Jarvis; Nathan E Simmons; Marc Bellerive; Kadir Erkmen; Clifford J Eskey; David J Gladstone; Eugen B Hug; David W Roberts; Alan C Hartford Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-04-09 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Robert J Weil; Gaurav G Mavinkurve; Samuel T Chao; Michael A Vogelbaum; John H Suh; Matthew Kolar; Steven A Toms Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2015-01-23 Impact factor: 5.115
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: K Steininger; K H Kahl; I Konietzko; C Wolfert; S Motov; P E Krauß; T Bröcheler; M Hadrawa; B Sommer; G Stüben; E Shiban Journal: Neurosurg Rev Date: 2022-07-26 Impact factor: 2.800
Authors: Paolo Palmisciano; Ali S Haider; Kishore Balasubramanian; Randy S D'Amico; Alla Gabriella Wernicke Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2022-06-13 Impact factor: 4.506
Authors: Dilini S Pinnaduwage; Shiv P Srivastava; Xiangsheng Yan; Shyam Jani; David G Brachman; Stephen P Sorensen Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022 Jan-Dec
Authors: Michael A Mooney; Wenya Linda Bi; Jonathan M Cantalino; Kyle C Wu; Thomas C Harris; Lucas L Possatti; Parikshit Juvekar; Liangge Hsu; Ian F Dunn; Ossama Al-Mefty; Phillip M Devlin Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2019-11-19 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Basem A Dahshan; Joshua S Weir; Robert P Bice; Paul Renz; Daniel T Cifarelli; Linda Poplawski; Joshua Hack; John A Vargo; Christopher P Cifarelli Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2021-01-14 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Jayant S Vaidya; Max Bulsara; Michael Baum; Frederik Wenz; Samuele Massarut; Steffi Pigorsch; Michael Alvarado; Michael Douek; Christobel Saunders; Henrik Flyger; Wolfgang Eiermann; Chris Brew-Graves; Norman R Williams; Ingrid Potyka; Nicholas Roberts; Marcelle Bernstein; Douglas Brown; Elena Sperk; Siobhan Laws; Marc Sütterlin; Tammy Corica; Steinar Lundgren; Dennis Holmes; Lorenzo Vinante; Fernando Bozza; Montserrat Pazos; Magali Le Blanc-Onfroy; Günther Gruber; Wojciech Polkowski; Konstantin J Dedes; Marcus Niewald; Jens Blohmer; David McReady; Richard Hoefer; Pond Kelemen; Gloria Petralia; Mary Falzon; David Joseph; Jeffrey S Tobias Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2021-05-25 Impact factor: 7.640