Rafael Martinez-Perez1, William Florez-Perdomo2, Lindsey Freeman3, Timothy H Ung3, A Samy Youssef4,5. 1. Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, 1635 Aurora Ct, 4th floor, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA. rafa11safin@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Medicine, Concejo Latinoamericano de Neurointensivismo-CLaNi, Cartagena, Colombia. 3. Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, 1635 Aurora Ct, 4th floor, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA. 4. Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, 1635 Aurora Ct, 4th floor, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA. samy.youssef@cuanschutz.edu. 5. Department of Otolaryngology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, 1635 Aurora Ct, 4th floor, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA. samy.youssef@cuanschutz.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most of the current knowledge on the clinical effects of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) on the treatment of cavernous sinus meningiomas (CSM) is based on series with limited follow-up. However, determining the role of radiation in a tumor with slow disease progression such as CSM necessitates long term follow up. OBJECTIVE: To review and pool metadata in the literature to determine the long-term outcomes of SRS with respect to clinical and radiographic tumor control of CSM. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted following MOOSE guidelines. Results were screened against predefined criteria, which excluded studies with a median follow-up less than 5 years. The incidences of each outcome were calculated using random-effects metanalysis of proportions. RESULTS: Seven studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 645 patients. The median follow-up was 74 months (range 62-87). Progression-free-survival at 5, 10, and 15 years was 93.4% (95% CI 89.1-96.7%), 84.9% (95% CI 77-91.4%), and 81.3% (95% CI 74-87.7%), respectively. Clinical response to SRS at last follow-up defined as improvement of cranial nerve deficits was found in in 36.4% (95% CI 26.3-47.1%) of patients, while worsening or onset of new cranial nerve deficits was found in 11.5% (95% CI 7.9-15.7%). Radiological regression was found in 57.8% (95% CI 43-71.8%), while tumor progression was found in 8.5% (95% CI 5.2-12.6%). CONCLUSION: SRS achieves excellent disease control and radiographic response in CSM. Although the risk of long-term cranial neuropathies is minimal, it is relatively higher to what has been previously reported in early series with limited follow-up.
BACKGROUND: Most of the current knowledge on the clinical effects of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) on the treatment of cavernous sinus meningiomas (CSM) is based on series with limited follow-up. However, determining the role of radiation in a tumor with slow disease progression such as CSM necessitates long term follow up. OBJECTIVE: To review and pool metadata in the literature to determine the long-term outcomes of SRS with respect to clinical and radiographic tumor control of CSM. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted following MOOSE guidelines. Results were screened against predefined criteria, which excluded studies with a median follow-up less than 5 years. The incidences of each outcome were calculated using random-effects metanalysis of proportions. RESULTS: Seven studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 645 patients. The median follow-up was 74 months (range 62-87). Progression-free-survival at 5, 10, and 15 years was 93.4% (95% CI 89.1-96.7%), 84.9% (95% CI 77-91.4%), and 81.3% (95% CI 74-87.7%), respectively. Clinical response to SRS at last follow-up defined as improvement of cranial nerve deficits was found in in 36.4% (95% CI 26.3-47.1%) of patients, while worsening or onset of new cranial nerve deficits was found in 11.5% (95% CI 7.9-15.7%). Radiological regression was found in 57.8% (95% CI 43-71.8%), while tumor progression was found in 8.5% (95% CI 5.2-12.6%). CONCLUSION: SRS achieves excellent disease control and radiographic response in CSM. Although the risk of long-term cranial neuropathies is minimal, it is relatively higher to what has been previously reported in early series with limited follow-up.
Authors: Salvatore Di Maio; Dinesh Ramanathan; Rabindranath Garcia-Lopez; Michael Herbas Rocha; Francisco Ponce Guerrero; Manuel Ferreira; Laligam N Sekhar Journal: World Neurosurg Date: 2011-11-07 Impact factor: 2.104
Authors: D F Stroup; J A Berlin; S C Morton; I Olkin; G D Williamson; D Rennie; D Moher; B J Becker; T A Sipe; S B Thacker Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-04-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: John Y K Lee; Ajay Niranjan; James McInerney; Douglas Kondziolka; John C Flickinger; L Dade Lunsford Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: John C Flickinger; Douglas Kondziolka; Ann H Maitz; L Dade Lunsford Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-07-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Claude Fabien Litré; Philippe Colin; Remy Noudel; Philippe Peruzzi; Arnaud Bazin; Bernard Sherpereel; Marie Helene Bernard; Pascal Rousseaux Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-12-30 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Rafael Martinez-Perez; Holger Joswig; Asterios Tsimpas; Tomas Poblete; Pablo Albiña; Ivan Perales; Jorge M Mura Journal: Neurosurg Rev Date: 2019-12-09 Impact factor: 3.042
Authors: Julian P T Higgins; Karla Soares-Weiser; José A López-López; Artemisia Kakourou; Katherine Chaplin; Hannah Christensen; Natasha K Martin; Jonathan A C Sterne; Arthur L Reingold Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-10-13
Authors: Mark C Preul; A Samy Youssef; Mohamed A Labib; Xiaochun Zhao; Lena Mary Houlihan; Irakliy Abramov; Mizuho Inoue; Rafael Martinez-Perez; Joshua S Catapano; Michael T Lawton Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2022-04-13 Impact factor: 2.816
Authors: Bhuvic Patel; Rupen Desai; Sangami Pugazenthi; Omar H Butt; Jiayi Huang; Albert H Kim Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-03-23 Impact factor: 6.244