OBJECTIVE: The major concern about ruptured arteriovenous malformations (rAVMs) is recurrent hemorrhage, which tends to preclude stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) as a therapeutic modality for these brain malformations. In this study, the authors aimed to clarify the role of SRS for rAVM as a stand-alone modality and an adjunct for a remnant nidus after surgery or embolization. METHODS: Data on 410 consecutive patients with rAVMs treated with SRS were analyzed. The patients were classified into groups, according to prior interventions: SRS-alone, surgery and SRS (Surg-SRS), and embolization and SRS (Embol-SRS) groups. The outcomes of the SRS-alone group were analyzed in comparison with those of the other two groups. RESULTS: The obliteration rate was higher in the Surg-SRS group than in the SRS-alone group (5-year cumulative rate 97% vs 79%, p < 0.001), whereas no significant difference was observed between the Embol-SRS and SRS-alone groups. Prior resection (HR 1.78, 95% CI 1.30-2.43, p < 0.001), a maximum AVM diameter ≤ 20 mm (HR 1.81, 95% CI 1.43-2.30, p < 0.001), and a prescription dose ≥ 20 Gy (HR 2.04, 95% CI 1.28-3.27, p = 0.003) were associated with a better obliteration rate, as demonstrated by multivariate Cox proportional hazards analyses. In the SRS-alone group, the annual post-SRS hemorrhage rates were 1.5% within 5 years and 0.2% thereafter and the 10-year significant neurological event-free rate was 95%; no intergroup difference was observed in either outcome. The exclusive performance of SRS (SRS alone) was not a risk for post-SRS hemorrhage or for significant neurological events based on multivariate analyses. These results were also confirmed with propensity score-matched analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment strategy for rAVMs should be tailored with due consideration of multiple factors associated with the patients. Stand-alone SRS is effective for hemorrhagic AVMs, and the risk of post-SRS hemorrhage was low. SRS can also be favorably used for residual AVMs after initial interventions, especially after failed resection.
OBJECTIVE: The major concern about ruptured arteriovenous malformations (rAVMs) is recurrent hemorrhage, which tends to preclude stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) as a therapeutic modality for these brain malformations. In this study, the authors aimed to clarify the role of SRS for rAVM as a stand-alone modality and an adjunct for a remnant nidus after surgery or embolization. METHODS: Data on 410 consecutive patients with rAVMs treated with SRS were analyzed. The patients were classified into groups, according to prior interventions: SRS-alone, surgery and SRS (Surg-SRS), and embolization and SRS (Embol-SRS) groups. The outcomes of the SRS-alone group were analyzed in comparison with those of the other two groups. RESULTS: The obliteration rate was higher in the Surg-SRS group than in the SRS-alone group (5-year cumulative rate 97% vs 79%, p < 0.001), whereas no significant difference was observed between the Embol-SRS and SRS-alone groups. Prior resection (HR 1.78, 95% CI 1.30-2.43, p < 0.001), a maximum AVM diameter ≤ 20 mm (HR 1.81, 95% CI 1.43-2.30, p < 0.001), and a prescription dose ≥ 20 Gy (HR 2.04, 95% CI 1.28-3.27, p = 0.003) were associated with a better obliteration rate, as demonstrated by multivariate Cox proportional hazards analyses. In the SRS-alone group, the annual post-SRS hemorrhage rates were 1.5% within 5 years and 0.2% thereafter and the 10-year significant neurological event-free rate was 95%; no intergroup difference was observed in either outcome. The exclusive performance of SRS (SRS alone) was not a risk for post-SRS hemorrhage or for significant neurological events based on multivariate analyses. These results were also confirmed with propensity score-matched analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment strategy for rAVMs should be tailored with due consideration of multiple factors associated with the patients. Stand-alone SRS is effective for hemorrhagic AVMs, and the risk of post-SRS hemorrhage was low. SRS can also be favorably used for residual AVMs after initial interventions, especially after failed resection.
Authors: James Mooney; Arsalaan Salehani; Nicholas Erickson; Evan Thomas; Adeel Ilyas; Sage Rahm; Nicholas Eustace; Pedram Maleknia; Omer Yousuf; Markus Bredel; John Fiveash; Chris Dobelbower; Winfield Fisher Journal: Surg Neurol Int Date: 2022-05-06