4.5 Article

What predicts early volumetric edema increase following stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases?

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEURO-ONCOLOGY
Volume 127, Issue 2, Pages 303-311

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11060-015-2034-4

Keywords

Edema; Volume; Radiosurgery; Brain; Metastasis; Radiographic

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A volumetric analysis of pre- and post-radiosurgery (PreSRS and PostSRS) edema in patients with cerebral metastases was performed to determine factors of a predictive model assessing the risk of developing increased edema relatively early after SRS. One-hundred-fourteen metastases in 55 patients were analyzed. Selection for this analysis required an MRI a parts per thousand currency sign 30 days before SRS and an MRI a parts per thousand currency sign 100 days after SRS. Tumor volumes were calculated on PreSRS, SRS, and PostSRS T1-weighted postgadolinium images while edema volumes were calculating using PreSRS and PostSRS fluid-attenuated inversion recovery MR images. An increase in edema was defined as an increase in measurable edema of at least 5 %. We developed and evaluated a model predicting the relative risk (RR) of increased edema after SRS. Peritumoral edema increased in 18 % (21/114) of the analyzed lesions. Melanoma/renal histology, recursive partitioning analysis class III, and prior WBRT carried RRs of developing postSRS edema increase of 2.45, 2.48, and 3.16, respectively (all P values < 0.05). The PreSRS edema/tumor ratio predicted for a RR of 1.007/ratio unit, and steroid dose at time of SRS predicted for a RR of 0.89/mg (all P values < 0.05). A predictive model for assessing the RR of increased edema after SRS was developed based from these data and may be useful in identifying patients who might benefit from prophylactic anti-edema therapies before, during, or after SRS. This model could be used as the basis of inclusion criteria for prospective trials investigating novel anti-edema therapies.

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