4.6 Article

Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Meningiomas in Children and Adolescents: An International Multi-Institutional Study

期刊

NEUROSURGERY
卷 93, 期 5, 页码 1066-1074

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1227/neu.0000000000002543

关键词

Adolescent; Children; Gamma knife; Management; Meningioma; Pediatric; Radiosurgery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of SRS in managing pediatric meningiomas. The results suggest that SRS may be a safe and effective treatment option for surgically inaccessible, recurrent, or residual pediatric meningiomas.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Meningiomas in children are uncommon, with distinct characteristics that set them apart from their adult counterparts. The existing evidence for stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) in this patient population is limited to only case series. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of SRS in managing pediatric meningiomas.METHODS: Children and adolescents who had been treated for meningioma with single-fraction SRS were included in this retrospective, multicenter study. The assessment included local tumor control, any complications related to the tumor or SRS, and the emergence of new neurological deficits after SRS.RESULTS: The cohort included 57 patients (male-to-female ratio 1.6:1) with a mean age of 14.4 years who were managed with single-fraction SRS for 78 meningiomas. The median radiological and clinical follow-up periods were 69 months (range, 6-268) and 71 months (range, 6-268), respectively. At the last follow-up, tumor control (tumor stability and regression) was achieved in 69 (85.9%) tumors. Post-SRS, new neurological deficits occurred in 2 (3.5%) patients. Adverse radiation effects occurred in 5 (8.8%) patients. A de novo aneurysm was observed in a patient 69 months after SRS.CONCLUSION: SRS seems to be a safe and effective up-front or adjuvant treatment option for surgically inaccessible, recurrent, or residual pediatric meningiomas.

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