BackgroundGlioblastoma Multiforme (GBM) is one of the most aggressive primary brain tumors and is associated with a dismal prognosis. The median survival after the primary diagnosis remains poor, even after multimodal treatment approaches. However, a few patients have been reported to have long term survival greater than three years. A number of studies have attempted to define factors capable of predicting long term outcomes in specific patient groups. This article reports the outcomes of a very large group of patients diagnosed with GBM, and analyzes specific prognostic factors known to influence survival in these patients.MethodsWe used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database of the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) to investigate various patient-related and treatment- related factors that could influence the long term survival in patients diagnosed with glioblastoma. A total of 34,664 patients aged 20 years or older with a diagnosis of GBM during the years 1973 to 2008 were studied. Overall survival outcomes were examined with Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox hazard models.ResultsAsian/Pacific Islanders had a better survival compared to the white population (P = <0.001). Patients diagnosed with GBM during the years 2000 to 2008 had a superior survival rate when compared with earlier decades (P = <0 .001). Statistically significant improvements in overall survival were also found for patients who received surgical resections, and adjuvant radiation treatment versus no radiation (P-values <0.001). Young age was also found to be highly predictive of improved overall survival rates when separated into age groups as well as when studied as a continuous variable.ConclusionsClinical pretreatment and treatment factors, including young age at diagnosis, Asian/Pacific Islander ethnicity, recent year of diagnosis, surgical resection and the use of adjuvant radiation therapy favorably influence survival in patients diagnosed with glioblastoma.Trial RegistrationAll data were obtained from the United States Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database.

Melanoma and renal cell carcinoma have a well-documented tendency to develop metastases to the brain. Treating these lesions has traditionally been problematic, because chemotherapy has difficulty crossing the blood brain barrier and whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) is a relatively ineffective treatment against these radioresistant tumor histologies. In recent years, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has emerged as an effective and minimally-invasive treatment modality for irradiating either single or multiple intracranial structures in one clinical treatment setting. For this reason, we conducted a review of modern literature analyzing the efficacy of SRS in the management of patients with melanoma and renal cell carcinoma brain metastases. In our analysis we found SRS to be a safe, effective and attractive treatment modality for managing radioresistant brain metastases and highlighted the need for randomized trials comparing WBRT alone vs. SRS alone vs. WBRT plus SRS in treating patients with radioresistant brain metastases.

Since its introduction by Leksell, Gamma Knife radiosurgery (GKRS) has become increasingly popular as a management approach for patients diagnosed with trigeminal neuralgia (TN). For this reason, we performed a modern review of the literature analyzing the efficacy of GKRS in the treatment of patients who suffer from TN. For patients with medically refractory forms of the condition, GKRS has proven to be an effective initial and repeat treatment option. Cumulative research suggests that patients treated a single time with GKRS exhibit similar levels of facial pain control when compared to patients treated multiple times with GKRS. However, patients treated on multiple occasions with GKRS are more likely to experience facial numbness and other facial sensory changes when compared to patients treated once with GKRS. Although numerous articles have reported MVD to be superior to GKRS in achieving facial pain relief, the findings of these comparison studies are weakened by the vast differences in patient age and comorbidities between the two studied groups and cannot be considered conclusive. Questions remain regarding optimal GKRS dosing and targeting strategies, which warrants further investigation into this controversial matter.