4.5 Article

Linac-based stereotactic radiosurgery for brain arteriovenous malformations

期刊

RADIATION ONCOLOGY
卷 17, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13014-022-02130-2

关键词

AVM; SRS; Radiosurgery; Stereotactic radiotherapy; Obliteration

资金

  1. Projekt DEAL

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzed the obliteration and re-bleeding rates after linac-based SRS treatment for cerebral AVMs. The results showed that prior embolization had no effect on the obliteration rate and the annual bleeding hazard rates were relatively low. However, asymptomatic abnormalities were detected in 33.9% of patients after imaging.
Purpose Linac stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is gaining popularity as a form of radiation treatment for cerebral arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) since the theory of combined radiosurgical and endovascular treatment poses much uncertainty and due to significant technical progress for SRS. This study focuses on how to evaluate obliteration and re-bleeding rates, and to determine factors and adverse effects influencing obliteration after linac-based SRS for cerebral AVMs. Material and methods From a statistical record of 71 patients, 31 had partial embolisation, five surgery and 29 had no prior treatment. Using Kaplan-Meier survival and life table analyses, actuarial obliteration and annual bleeding hazard rates were calculated after SRS. Results After a follow up of 1, 2 and 3 years the actual obliteration rates were 22, 59 and 66%, respectively whereby it was noted that prior embolization had no effect on the obliteration rate. Annual bleeding hazard rates were further analyzed after stereotactic radiosurgery to be 2.1% and 1.4% for the first and second year respectively. Asymptomatic abnormalities were detected after imaging in 33.9% of patients. A dose of less than 18 Gy significantly reduced the obliteration probability. Conclusion SRS is a therapeutic option for intracerebral AVM. In general, there is a low rate of morbidity and a high probability of nidus obliteration.

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

4.5
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