4.1 Review

Salvage Radiosurgery for Recurrent Supratentorial Primitive Neuroectodermal Tumors: A Single Institutional Series and Review of the Literature

Journal

STEREOTACTIC AND FUNCTIONAL NEUROSURGERY
Volume 99, Issue 5, Pages 405-411

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000515544

Keywords

Radiosurgery; Gamma knife; Supratentorial primitive neuroectodermal tumor

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study retrospectively reviewed 8 patients treated with SRS for recurrent supratentorial PNET from 1999 to 2014. The results showed that SRS could be effective in these patients, but the overall survival time remains limited.
Introduction: Supratentorial primitive neuroectodermal tumor is a rare, aggressive intrinsic brain tumor with limited treatment options for recurrent disease. SRS as a treatment modality in the recurrent setting was investigated. Methods: A retrospective review of 8 patients treated with SRS for local or distant recurrence of supratentorial PNET from 1999 to 2014 was conducted. Results: Thirty-six tumors were treated in 15 sessions in 8 patients. The median patient age was 22.5 (interquartile range [IQR], 14.75-43.5 years) with a median 21-month period from diagnosis until SRS (IQR, 16-23.75 months). The median prescription isodose volume was 1.85 cm(3) (IQR, 1.85-7.02 cm(3)); median tumor margin dose was 18 Gy (IQR 14-20 Gy); and median isocenters was 2 (range 1-13). No patients experienced adverse radiation effects. All but 1 patient died, and the median overall survival was 32 months (IQR, 26.75-53.5 months) with median overall survival following SRS of 9.5 months (IQR, 5.25-30 months). Univariate analysis failed to demonstrate a statistically significant association between age, number of gamma knife treatments, interval to gamma knife, and margin radiation dose with overall survival. Discussion/Conclusion: This series supports the use of SRS in patients with recurrent supratentorial PNET following multimodal therapy.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available