4.6 Article

Outcome Evaluation of Oligometastatic Patients Treated with Surgical Resection Followed by Hypofractionated Stereotactic Radiosurgery (HSRS) on the Tumor Bed, for Single, Large Brain Metastases

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 11, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157869

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose The aim of this study was to evaluate the benefit of a combined treatment, surgery followed by adjuvant hypofractionated stereotactic radiosurgery (HSRS) on the tumor bed, in oligometastatic patients with single, large brain metastasis (BM). Methods and Materials Fom January 2011 to March 2015, 69 patients underwent complete surgical resection followed by HSRS with a total dose of 30Gy in 3 daily fractions. Clinical outcome was evaluated by neurological examination and MRI 2 months after radiotherapy and then every 3 months. Local progression was defined as radiographic increase of the enhancing abnormality in the irradiated volume, and brain distant progression as the presence of new brain metastases or leptomeningeal enhancement outside the irradiated volume. Surgical morbidity and radiation-therapy toxicity, local control (LC), brain distant progression (BDP), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. Results The median preoperative volume and maximum diameter of BM was 18.5cm(3) (range 4.1-64.2cm(3)) and 3.6cm (range 2.1-5-4cm); the median CTV was 29.0cm(3) (range 4.1-203.1cm(3)) and median PTV was 55.2cm(3) (range 17.2-282.9cm(3)). The median follow-up time was 24 months (range 4-33 months). The 1-and 2-year LC in site of treatment was 100%; the median, 1-and 2-year BDP was 11.9 months, 19.6% and 33.0%; the median, 1- and 2-year OS was 24 months (range 4-33 months), 91.3% and 73.0%. No severe postoperative morbidity or radiation therapy toxicity occurred in our series. Conclusions Multimodal approach, surgery followed by HSRS, can be an effective treatment option for selected patients with single, large brain metastases from different solid tumors.

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