4.7 Article

A meta-analysis evaluating stereotactic radiosurgery, whole-brain radiotherapy, or both for patients presenting with a limited number of brain metastases

Journal

CANCER
Volume 118, Issue 9, Pages 2486-2493

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.26515

Keywords

brain metastases; stereotactic radiosurgery; whole brain radiotherapy; meta-analysis; neurocognition

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: To perform a meta-analysis on newly diagnosed brain metastases patients treated with whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) boost versus WBRT alone, or in patients treated with SRS alone versus WBRT and SRS boost. METHODS: The meta-analysis primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), local control (LC), and distant brain control (DBC). Secondary outcomes were neurocognition, quality of life (QOL), and toxicity. Using published Kaplan-Meier curves, results were pooled using hazard ratios (HR). RESULTS: Two RCTs reported on WBRT and SRS boost versus WBRT alone. For multiple brain metastases (2-4 tumors) we conclude no difference in OS, and LC significantly favored WBRT plus SRS boost. Three RCTs reported on SRS alone versus WBRT plus SRS boost (1-4 tumors). There was no difference in OS despite both LC and DBC significantly favoring WBRT plus SRS boost. Although secondary endpoints could not be pooled for meta-analysis, those RCTs evaluating SRS alone conclude better neurocognition using the validated Hopkins Verbal Learning Test, no adverse risk in deteriorating Mini-Mental Status Exam scores or in maintaining performance status, and fewer late toxicities. We conclude insufficient data for QOL outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: For selected patients, we conclude no OS benefit for WBRT plus SRS boost compared with SRS alone. Although additional WBRT improves DBC and LC, SRS alone should be considered a routine treatment option due to favorable neurocognitive outcomes, less risk of late side effects, and does not adversely affect the patients performance status. Cancer 2012;118:2486-93. (C) 2011 American Cancer Society.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available