Chiara Reverberi1, Stefania Volpe2,3, Stefano M Magrini4, Stefano Arcangeli5, Damiano Balestrini6, Michela Buglione4, Piera Navarria7, Silvia Scoccianti8, Pierpaolo Panciani9, Marco Krengli10, Luigi Pirtoli11, Lorenzo Bordi12, Giovanni L Pappagallo13, Rolando M D ' Angelillo14. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Friuli Centrale, Ospedale Santa Maria della Misericordia, Udine, Italy. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology IRCSS, Milan, Italy. stefania.volpe@ieo.it. 3. Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. stefania.volpe@ieo.it. 4. Radiation Oncology Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Science and Public Health, ASST Spedali Civili of Brescia, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Policlinico S. Gerardo and University of Milan "Bicocca", Milan, Italy. 6. Radiotherapy Department, Bellaria Hospital, AUSL-IRCCS Scienze Neurologiche, Bologna, Italy. 7. Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery Department, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center IRCCS-Rozzano, Milan, Italy. 8. Radiation Oncology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Careggi, University of Florence, Florence, Italy. 9. Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences and Public Health, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy. 10. Division of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital "Maggiore Della Carità", Novara, Italy. 11. Department of Biology, College of Science and Technology, Temple University, and Sbarro Health Research Organization, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 12. Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Careggi, University of Florence, Neurosurgery Unit, Florence, Italy. 13. Epidemiology and Clinical Trials Office, General Hospital, Mirano, Venice, Italy. 14. Department of Radiotherapy, Fondazione Policlinico Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review of the current level of evidence on post-operative management following brain metastasectomy (namely: adjuvant stereotactic radiosurgery, whole brain radiotherapy or observation), and to propose a GRADE-based dedicated recommendation to inform Radiation Oncologists' clinical practice. METHODS: A panel of expert Radiation Oncologists from the Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology had defined the search question per the PICO methodology. Electronic databases were independently screened; the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was adopted. The individual and pooled hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI), as well as the pooled risk ratio (RR) were calculated using a fixed- or random-effects model. RESULTS: Eight full-texts were retrieved: six retrospective studies and two randomized clinical trials. Outcomes of benefit and damage were analyzed for SRS + observation (PICO A) and SRS + WBRT. SRS allowed for increased rates of local control when compared to both observation and WBRT, while evidence was less conclusive for distant brain control, leptomeningeal disease control and overall survival. In the SRS, the incidence of severe radionecrosis was higher as compared to WBRT, despite neurocognitive deterioration rates were lower. Overall, SRS seems to favorably compare with observation and whole brain RT, despite the level of evidence for the recommendation was low and very low, respectively. CONCLUSION: Despite low level of evidence, the panel concluded that the risk/benefit ratio probably favors adjuvant SRS as compared to the observation and whole brain RT as adjuvant treatments following brain metastasectomy (5 votes/5 participants, 100% attendance).
PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review of the current level of evidence on post-operative management following brain metastasectomy (namely: adjuvant stereotactic radiosurgery, whole brain radiotherapy or observation), and to propose a GRADE-based dedicated recommendation to inform Radiation Oncologists' clinical practice. METHODS: A panel of expert Radiation Oncologists from the Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology had defined the search question per the PICO methodology. Electronic databases were independently screened; the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was adopted. The individual and pooled hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI), as well as the pooled risk ratio (RR) were calculated using a fixed- or random-effects model. RESULTS: Eight full-texts were retrieved: six retrospective studies and two randomized clinical trials. Outcomes of benefit and damage were analyzed for SRS + observation (PICO A) and SRS + WBRT. SRS allowed for increased rates of local control when compared to both observation and WBRT, while evidence was less conclusive for distant brain control, leptomeningeal disease control and overall survival. In the SRS, the incidence of severe radionecrosis was higher as compared to WBRT, despite neurocognitive deterioration rates were lower. Overall, SRS seems to favorably compare with observation and whole brain RT, despite the level of evidence for the recommendation was low and very low, respectively. CONCLUSION: Despite low level of evidence, the panel concluded that the risk/benefit ratio probably favors adjuvant SRS as compared to the observation and whole brain RT as adjuvant treatments following brain metastasectomy (5 votes/5 participants, 100% attendance).
Authors: L Kepka; D Tyc-Szczepaniak; K Osowiecka; A Sprawka; B Trąbska-Kluch; B Czeremszynska Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2017-06-14 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Jeff Andrews; Gordon Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Phil Alderson; Philipp Dahm; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Mona Nasser; Joerg Meerpohl; Piet N Post; Regina Kunz; Jan Brozek; Gunn Vist; David Rind; Elie A Akl; Holger J Schünemann Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2013-01-09 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Christopher M McPherson; Dima Suki; Iman Feiz-Erfan; Anita Mahajan; Eric Chang; Raymond Sawaya; Frederick F Lang Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2010-02-14 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Diane C Ling; John A Vargo; Rodney E Wegner; John C Flickinger; Steven A Burton; Johnathan Engh; Nduka Amankulor; Annette E Quinn; Cihat Ozhasoglu; Dwight E Heron Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Steven W Hwang; Mohab M Abozed; Andrew Hale; Rebecca L Eisenberg; Tomas Dvorak; Kevin Yao; Rolf Pfannl; John Mignano; Jay-Jiguang Zhu; Lori Lyn Price; Gary M Strauss; Julian K Wu Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2009-11-12 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Paul D Brown; Kurt Jaeckle; Karla V Ballman; Elana Farace; Jane H Cerhan; S Keith Anderson; Xiomara W Carrero; Fred G Barker; Richard Deming; Stuart H Burri; Cynthia Ménard; Caroline Chung; Volker W Stieber; Bruce E Pollock; Evanthia Galanis; Jan C Buckner; Anthony L Asher Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-07-26 Impact factor: 56.272
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: Anita Mahajan; Salmaan Ahmed; Mary Frances McAleer; Jeffrey S Weinberg; Jing Li; Paul Brown; Stephen Settle; Sujit S Prabhu; Frederick F Lang; Nicholas Levine; Susan McGovern; Erik Sulman; Ian E McCutcheon; Syed Azeem; Daniel Cahill; Claudio Tatsui; Amy B Heimberger; Sherise Ferguson; Amol Ghia; Franco Demonte; Shaan Raza; Nandita Guha-Thakurta; James Yang; Raymond Sawaya; Kenneth R Hess; Ganesh Rao Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2017-07-04 Impact factor: 41.316