4.5 Article

Repeat Radiosurgery Treatment After Cavernous Malformation Radiosurgery

Journal

WORLD NEUROSURGERY
Volume 118, Issue -, Pages E296-E303

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.06.183

Keywords

Basal ganglia; Brainstem; Cavernous malformation; Hemispheric; Radiosurgery; Retreatment; Thalamus

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: Of cavernous malformations (CMs) treated with radiosurgery (RS), 5% bleed after 2-year initial latency period. This rate is similar to failure rate of RS for other pathologies, which often require repeat RS for favorable outcome. The aim of this pilot study was to define failure of CM RS and to assess safety of second RS. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed of 7 of 345 CMs retreated with RS; 6 CMs were deep-seated, and 1 was superficial. Median time between the 2 treatments was 8 years (range, 3-16 years), and median follow-up time after second RS was 3 years (range, 1-9 years). RESULTS: Following the 2-year latency period after RS, 6% of deep-seated and 5% of hemispheric CMs, and 6% of deep-seated and 2% of hemispheric lesions caused transient neurologic deficits without hemorrhage. A second treatment was indicated for rebleed in 5 cases and for recurrent transient neurologic deficits in 2 cases. Prescribed dose was 15 Gy (range, 12-20 Gy) at first treatment and 12 Gy (range, 12-18 Gy) at second treatment. Target volumes were 692 mm(3) (range, 54-2400 mm(3)) and 935 mm(3) (range, 150-1550 mm(3)) at first and second treatments, respectively, and treatment volumes were 811 mm(3) (range, 79-2500 mm(3)) and 962 mm(3) (range, 194-1750 mm(3)), respectively. Differences in treatment parameters were not significant. Reason for failure was inaccurate target definition in only 2 cases. There were no bleeds, morbidity, or mortality after second RS. CONCLUSIONS: Second RS applied to previously treated CMs is safe and may be effective. Further investigations are needed to verify these findings and assess long-term benefit of second RS.

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