No abstract

No abstract

PurposeTo systematically review the evidence for the radiotherapeutic and surgical management of patients newly diagnosed with intraparenchymal brain metastases.Methods and MaterialsKey clinical questions to be addressed in this evidence-based Guideline were identified. Fully published randomized controlled trials dealing with the management of newly diagnosed intraparenchymal brain metastases were searched systematically and reviewed. The U.S. Preventative Services Task Force levels of evidence were used to classify various options of management.ResultsThe choice of management in patients with newly diagnosed single or multiple brain metastases depends on estimated prognosis and the aims of treatment (survival, local treated lesion control, distant brain control, neurocognitive preservation).Single brain metastasis and good prognosis (expected survival 3 months or more): For a single brain metastasis larger than 3 to 4 cm and amenable to safe complete resection, whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) and surgery (level 1) should be considered. Another alternative is surgery and radiosurgery/radiation boost to the resection cavity (level 3). For single metastasis less than 3 to 4 cm, radiosurgery alone or WBRT and radiosurgery or WBRT and surgery (all based on level 1 evidence) should be considered. Another alternative is surgery and radiosurgery or radiation boost to the resection cavity (level 3). For single brain metastasis (less than 3 to 4 cm) that is not resectable or incompletely resected, WBRT and radiosurgery, or radiosurgery alone should be considered (level 1). For nonresectable single brain metastasis (larger than 3 to 4 cm), WBRT should be considered (level 3).Multiple brain metastases and good prognosis (expected survival 3 months or more): For selected patients with multiple brain metastases (all less than 3 to 4 cm), radiosurgery alone, WBRT and radiosurgery, or WBRT alone should be considered, based on level 1 evidence. Safe resection of a brain metastasis or metastases causing significant mass effect and postoperative WBRT may also be considered (level 3).Patients with poor prognosis (expected survival less than 3 months): Patients with either single or multiple brain metastases with poor prognosis should be considered for palliative care with or without WBRT (level 3).It should be recognized, however, that there are limitations in the ability of physicians to accurately predict patient survival. Prognostic systems such as recursive partitioning analysis, and diagnosis-specific graded prognostic assessment may be helpful.ConclusionsRadiotherapeutic intervention (WBRT or radiosurgery) is associated with improved brain control. In selected patients with single brain metastasis, radiosurgery or surgery has been found to improve survival and locally treated metastasis control (compared with WBRT alone).

No abstract

No abstract

Object. The authors report data concerning the safety, effectiveness, and patterns of failure obtained in a Phase I/II study of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for spinal metastatic tumors. Methods. Sixty-three cancer patients underwent near-simultaneous computed tomography–guided SBRT. Spinal magnetic resonance imaging was conducted at baseline and at each follow-up visit. The National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria 2.0 assessments were used to evaluate toxicity. Results. The median tumor volume of 74 spinal metastatic lesions was 37.4 cm3 (range 1.6–358 cm3). No neuropathy or myelopathy was observed during a median follow-up period of 21.3 months (range 0.9–49.6 months). The actuarial 1-year tumor progression–free incidence was 84% for all tumors. Pattern-of-failure analysis showed two primary mechanisms of failure: 1) recurrence in the bone adjacent to the site of previous treatment, and 2) recurrence in the epidural space adjacent to the spinal cord. Grade 3 or 4 toxicities were limited to acute Grade 3 nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea (one case); Grade 3 dysphagia and trismus (one case); and Grade 3 noncardiac chest pain (one case). There was no subacute or late Grade 3 or 4 toxicity. Conclusions. Analysis of the data obtained in the present study supports the safety and effectiveness of SBRT in cases of spinal metastatic cancer. The authors consider it prudent to routinely treat the pedicles and posterior elements using a wide bone margin posterior to the diseased vertebrae because of the possible direct extension into these structures. For patients without a history of radiotherapy, more liberal spinal cord dose constraints than those used in this study could be applied to help reduce failures in the epidural space.

Caution must be observed when treating with ≥ 20 Gy/fraction, in particular, for patients with lytic tumor, spinal misalignment, and a baseline VCF. Frequent short-term follow-up is required, as nearly two thirds of all VCF occurred within the first 4 months. We also conclude that SINS may have utility in predicting patients at high risk of SBRT-induced VCF.

For patients ≤50 years of age, SRS alone favored survival, in addition, the initial omission of WBRT did not impact distant brain relapse rates. SRS alone may be the preferred treatment for this age group.