4.6 Article

Prognostic Factors Analysis for Intracranial Cavernous Malformations Treated with Linear Accelerator Stereotactic Radiosurgery

期刊

LIFE-BASEL
卷 12, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/life12091363

关键词

adverse radiation effect; cavernous malformation; edema; linear accelerator; radiosurgery; rebleeding

资金

  1. Chang Gung Memorial Hospital [CORPG3M0051]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated prognostic factors for post-radiosurgical rebleeding and focal edematous changes in patients with CCM. The results showed that higher dose and earlier treatment were associated with a lower rebleeding rate. The study demonstrated the efficacy of LINAC SRS in preventing CCM rebleeding.
Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is generally considered a substitute for cranial cavernous malformations (CCMs). However, prognostic factors for post-radiosurgery CCM rebleeding and adverse radiation effects have not been well evaluated, and the effect of timing and optimal treatment remains controversial. Therefore, this study evaluated prognostic factors for post-radiosurgical rebleeding and focal edematous changes in 30 patients who developed symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage due to solitary non-brainstem CCM and received linear accelerator (LINAC) SRS in a single medical center from October 2002 to June 2018. An overall post-radiosurgical annual hemorrhage rate with 4.5% was determined in this study. In addition, a higher marginal dose of >1600 centigray and earlier LINAC SRS intervention were correlated with a significantly lower post-radiosurgical annual hemorrhage rate. A lesion size larger than 3 cm(3) and a coexisting developmental venous anomaly were significant risk factors for post-radiosurgical focal brain edema but mostly resulted in no symptoms and were temporary. This study demonstrated the efficacy of LINAC SRS in preventing CCM rebleeding and suggests that earlier radiosurgery treatment with a higher dose for non-brainstem symptomatic CCMs be considered.

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

4.6
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