3.8 Article

Combined surgical resection and stereotactic radiosurgery for treatment of cerebral metastases

期刊

SURGICAL NEUROLOGY
卷 71, 期 3, 页码 280-288

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.surneu.2007.12.019

关键词

Cerebral metastasis; Gamma knife; Stereotactic radiosurgery; Surgery; Whole-brain radiotherapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Patients with limited intracranial metastatic disease traditionally have been treated with surgery followed by WBRT. However, there is growing concern for the debilitating cognitive effects after WBRT in long-term survivors. We present a series of patients treated with surgery followed by SRS, while reserving WBRT as a salvage therapy for disease progression. Methods: Medical records from 15 patients with I to 2 cerebral metastases who underwent both resection and SRS were reviewed. Outcome measures included overall survival, survival by RPA class, EOR, local tumor control, progression of intracranial disease, need for WBRT salvage therapy, and COD. Results: Fifteen patients with cerebral metastases were treated with the combined surgery-SRS paradigm. Eight of the 15 patients (53.3%) were designated RPA class 1, with 6 of 15 (40.0%) in class 2 and I of 15 (6.7%) in class 3. Gross total resection was achieved in 12 cases (80.0%). Overall median survival was 20.0 months, with values of 22.0 and 13.0 months for RPA classes 1 and 2, respectively. Local recurrence occurred in 16.7% of those patients with GTR. Six patients (40.0%) went on to receive WBRT at a median of 8.0 months from initial presentation. Twelve patients (80.0%) had died at the completion of the study, and the COD was CNS progression in 33.3%. Conclusions: Surgical resection combined with SRS is an effective treatment for selected patients with limited cerebral metastatic disease. Survival using this combined treatment was equivalent to or greater than that reported by other studies using surgery + WBRT or SRS + WBRT. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

3.8
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