4.6 Article

Stereotactic radiosurgery for vestibular schwannomas: Analysis of 317 patients followed more than 5 years

Journal

NEUROSURGERY
Volume 57, Issue 2, Pages 257-263

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000166542.00512.84

Keywords

acoustic neuroma; gamma knife; long-term results; radiosurgery; vestibular schwannoma

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Many investigators have reported successful treatment of vestibular schwannomas with gamma knife radiosurgery (GKRS). However, long-term outcomes should be evaluated before concluding that GKRS is truly safe and effective for the treatment of vestibular schwannomas. Methods: Between May 1991 and December 1998, 346 consecutive patients (excluding those presenting with neurofibromatosis Type 2) were treated with GKRS. Of these, 317 patients were assessed: Twenty-nine patients were lost to follow-up within 5 years. Results: The median follow-up period was 7.8 years. Of 301 patients who underwent serial follow-up imaging, two (1%) experienced complete remission, 184 (61%) experienced partial remission, 93 (31%) had stable tumors, and 22 (7%) experienced treatment failure. The actuarial 5- or 10-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 93 and 92%, respectively. Tumors less than 15 cm(3) in volume (10-yr PFS, 96%; P<0.001) or which did not compress the brainstem and deviate the fourth ventricle (10-yr PFS, 97%; P=0.008) resulted in significantly better PFS rates. Failure of treatment usually occurred within 3 years. When the tumor was treated with a marginal dose of 13 Gy or less, the hearing preservation rate was 68%, transient facial palsy developed at a rate of 1%, and facial numbness developed at a rate of 2%. Conclusion: GKRS proved to be a safe and effective treatment for patients followed longer than 5 years who presented with tumors with a volume of less than 15 cm(3) and who did not have significant fourth ventricle deviation. Good functional outcomes were observed in this group of patients.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available