In the present study, we have evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of repeated brain metastases (BM) stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS2) following local failure of a prior radiosurgical procedure (SRS1). Between December 1996 and August 2015, 30 patients with 36 BM underwent SRS2 with a median dose of 18Gy. All BM were located outside critical structures. Following SRS2, local control at 6 months and one year were respectively 82.9% (IC 95%: 67.6–91.9) and 67.8% (IC 95%: 51–81). On multivariate analysis, planning target volume (PTV) < 3cc (HR: 0.19 (0.1–0.52)) and whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) prior to SRS2 (HR: 0.25 (0.1–0.64)) were significantly associated with a better local control. One- and two-year overall survival rates after SRS2 were respectively 65.5% (IC 95%: 47.3–80%) and 27.6% (IC 95%: 14.7–45.7). Median overall survival following SRS2 was 14.2 months (range 1–106). Nineteen (63%) patients died from progressive systemic disease. Three (10%) patients died from out-field progressive brain disease and 8 (27%) in-field. Concerning toxicities, edema, radionecrosis, and hemorrhages were identified in 5 (12.8%), 4 (10.2%), and 5 (12.8%) patients respectively. No toxicity resulted in a neurological deficit. On univariate analysis, toxicities were significantly associated with PTV > 7cc (p = 0.02) and all patients had a WBRT before SRS2. A second course of SRS for locally recurrent brain metastases showed encouraging rates of local control. This treatment led to acceptable toxicities, especially for brain metastases smaller than 7cc, in our selected cohort of patients with BM located outside critical structures. Further studies are needed.
Radiation-induced endothelial/vascular injury is a major complicating factor in radiotherapy and a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in nuclear or radiological catastrophes. Exposure of tissue to ionizing radiation (IR) leads to the release of oxygen radicals and proteases that result in loss of endothelial barrier function and leukocyte dysfunction leading to tissue injury and organ damage. Microvascular endothelial cells are particularly sensitive to IR and radiation-induced alterations in endothelial cell function are thought to be a critical factor in organ damage through endothelial cell activation, enhanced leukocyte-endothelial cell interactions, increased barrier permeability and initiation of apoptotic pathways. These radiation-induced inflammatory responses are important in early and late radiation pathologies in various organs. A better understanding of mechanisms of radiation-induced endothelium dysfunction is therefore vital, as radiobiological response of endothelium is of major importance for medical management and therapeutic development for radiation injuries. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge of cellular and molecular mechanisms of radiation-induced endothelium damage and their impact on early and late radiation injury. Furthermore, we review established and emerging in vivo and in vitro models that have been developed to study the mechanisms of radiation-induced endothelium damage and to design, develop and rapidly screen therapeutics for treatment of radiation-induced vascular damage. Currently there are no specific therapeutics available to protect against radiation-induced loss of endothelial barrier function, leukocyte dysfunction and resulting organ damage. Developing therapeutics to prevent endothelium dysfunction and normal tissue damage during radiotherapy can serve as the urgently needed medical countermeasures.
BackgroundThe optimization of the management for elderly glioblastoma patients is crucial given the demographics of aging in many countries. We report the outcomes for a “real-life” patient cohort (i.e. unselected) comprising consecutive glioblastoma patients aged 70 years or more, treated with different radiotherapy +/− temozolomide regimens.MethodsFrom 2003 to 2016, 104 patients ≥ 70 years of age, consecutively treated by radiotherapy for glioblastoma, were included in this study. All patients were diagnosed with IDH-wild type glioblastoma according to pathological criteria.ResultsOur patient cohort comprised 51 female patients (49%) and 53 male. The median cohort age was 75 years (70–88), and the median Karnofsky performance status (KPS) was 70 (30–100). Five (5%) patients underwent macroscopic complete resection, 9 (9%) had partial resection, and 90 (86%), a stereotactic biopsy. The MGMT promoter was methylated in 33/73 cases (45%). Fifty-two (50%), 38 (36%), and 14 (14%) patients were categorized with RPA scores of III, IV, and I-II. Thirty-three (32%) patients received normofractionated radiotherapy (60 Gy, 30 sessions) with temozolomide (Stupp), 37 (35%) received hypofractionated radiotherapy (median dose 40 Gy, 15 sessions) with temozolomide (HFRT + TMZ), and 34 (33%) HFRT alone. Patients receiving only HFRT were significantly older, with lower KPSs. The median overall survival (OS; all patients) was 5.2 months. OS rates at 12, 18, and 24 months, were 19%, 12%, and 5%, respectively, with no statistical differences between patients receiving Stupp or HFRT + TMZ (P = 0.22). In contrast, patients receiving HFRT alone manifested a significantly shorter survival time (3.9 months vs. 5.9 months, P = 0.018). In multivariate analyses, the prognostic factors for OS were: i) the type of surgery (HR: 0.47 [0.26–0.86], P = 0.014), ii) RPA class (HR: 2.15 [1.17–3.95], P = 0.014), and iii) temozolomide use irrespective of radiotherapy schedule (HR: 0.54 [0.33–0.88], P < 0.02). MGMT promoter methylation was neither a prognostic nor a predictive factor.ConclusionsThese outcomes agree with the literature in terms of optimal surgery and the use of HFRT as a standard treatment for elderly GBM patients. Our study emphasizes the potential benefit of using temozolomide with radiotherapy in a real-life cohort of elderly GBM patients, irrespective of their MGMT status.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.