4.7 Article

Proposal for a New Prognostic Score for Linac-Based Radiosurgery in Cerebral Arteriovenous Malformations

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.07.008

关键词

Arteriovenous malformations; AVM; Radiosurgery; Linac-based; Score; Prognostic factors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: We evaluate patient-, angioma-, and treatment-specific factors for successful obliteration of cerebral arteriovenous malformations (AVM) to develop a new appropriate score to predict patient outcome after linac-based radiosurgery (RS). Methods and Materials: This analysis in based on 293 patients with cerebral AVM. Mean age at treatment was 38.8 years (4-73 years). AVM classification according Spetzler-Martin was 55 patients Grade I (20.5%), 114 Grade II (42.5%), 79 Grade III (29.5%), 19 Grade IV (7.1%), and 1 Grade V (0.4%). Median maximum AVM diameter was 3.0 cm (range, 0.3-10 cm). Median dose prescribed to the 80% isodose was 18 Gy (range, 12-22 Gy). Eighty-five patients (29.1%) had prior partial embolization; 141 patients (51.9%) experienced intracranial hemorrhage before RS. Median follow-up was 4.2 years. Results: Age at treatment, maximum diameter, nidus volume, and applied dose were significant factors for successful obliteration. Under presumption of proportional hazard in the dose range between 12 and 22 Gy/80% isodose, an increase of obliteration rate of approximately 25% per Gy was seen. On the basis of multivariate analysis, a prediction score was calculated including AVM maximum diameter and age at treatment. The prediction error up to the time point 8 years was 0.173 for the Heidelberg score compared with the Kaplan-Meier value of 0.192. An increase of the score of 1 point results in a decrease of obliteration chance by a factor of 0.447. Conclusion: The proposed score is linac-based radiosurgery-specific and easy to handle to predict patient outcome. Further validation on an independent patient cohort is necessary. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据