4.7 Article

Estimated risk of perihippocampal disease progression after hippocampal avoidance during whole-brain radiotherapy: Safety profile for RTOG 0933

期刊

RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY
卷 95, 期 3, 页码 327-331

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2010.02.030

关键词

Brain metastases; Whole-brain radiotherapy; Neurocognitive function; Hippocampal avoidance; RTOG 0933

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P01 CA088960-05, P01 CA088960] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and purpose: RTOG 0933 is a phase II clinical trial of hippocampal avoidance during whole-brain radiotherapy (HA-WBRT) to prevent radiation-induced neurocognitive decline. By quantifying baseline incidence of perihippocampal or hippocampal metastasis, we sought to estimate the risk of developing metastases in the hippocampal avoidance region (the hippocampus plus 5 mm margin). Materials/methods: Patients with <= 10 brain metastases treated at two separate institutions were reviewed. Axial images from pre-treatment, post-contrast MRIs were used to contour each metastasis and hippocampus according to a published protocol. Clinical and radiographic variables were correlated with perihippocampal metastasis using a binary logistical regression analysis, with two-sided p < 0.05 for statistical significance. Results: 1133 metastases were identified in 371 patients. Metastases within 5 mm of the hippocampus were observed in 8.6% of patients (95% CI 5.7-11.5%) and 3.0% of brain metastases. None of the metastases lay within the hippocampus. A 1-cm(3) increase in the aggregate volume of intra-cranial metastatic disease was associated with an odds ratio of 1.02 (95% CI 1.006-1.034, p = 0.003) for the presence of perihippocampal metastasis. Conclusion: With an estimated perihippocampal metastasis risk of 8.6%, we deem HA-WBRT safe for clinical testing in patients with brain metastases as part of RTOG 0933. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. Radiotherapy and Oncology 95 (2010) 327-331

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