4.5 Article

Tumor control and hearing preservation after Gamma Knife radiosurgery for vestibular schwannomas in neurofibromatosis type 2

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEURO-ONCOLOGY
Volume 98, Issue 2, Pages 265-270

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11060-010-0181-1

Keywords

Bilateral; Gamma Knife; Neurofibromatosis type 2; Outcome; Stereotactic radiosurgery; Vestibular schwannoma

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To analyze the effect of Gamma Knife radiosurgery (GKS) on tumor control and hearing preservation rates in patients with vestibular schwannomas (VS) in a setting of neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF 2), a retrospective study was carried out at a tertiary-level referral Gamma Knife unit. Dose plans, pre-and postoperative radiology, and follow-up clinical records of patients with NF 2 who had undergone GKS for VS using a Leksell Gamma Knife (Elekta Instruments AB, Stockholm, Sweden) model B unit from 1997 to 2008 were reviewed. Thirty patients with 54 VS underwent GKS. The average age of the cohort was 29 years (range 10-56 years). Twenty-four patients had bilateral VS. The commonest clinical presentation was hearing loss and tinnitus. Primary GKS was given to 36 tumors, while 18 tumors received it as an adjunct to surgery. Average tumor size was 3.7 cc (range 0.1-13.3 cc). A median 12 Gy prescription dose (range 10-15 Gy) was administered at the 50% isodose (range 42-50%) to cover on average 91.5% of the tumor. Eighteen patients were available for clinical, 14 patients for radiological, and 5 patients (with useful hearing) for audiometric follow-up at an average of 26.6 months. The tumor control rate was 87.5% in this series (33.3% tumor regression), while hearing preservation was noted in 66.7% of cases. One patient developed worsening of facial function. GKS for VS provides satisfactory tumor control and hearing preservation in patients with NF 2. Long-term follow-up will determine future recommendations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available