4.7 Article

Conventionally fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT) for acoustic neuromas

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0360-3016(00)01361-4

关键词

acoustic neuroma; fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy; outcome analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Analysis of local tumor control and functional outcome following conventionally fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT) for acoustic neuromas. Patients and Methods: From 11/1989 to 9/1999 51 patients with acoustic neuromas have been treated by FSRT. Mean total dose was 57.6 +/- 2.5 Gy. Forty-two patients have been followed for at least 12 months and were subject of an outcome analysis. Mean follow-up was 42 months. We analyzed local control, hearing preservation, and facial and trigeminal nerve functional preservation. We evaluated influences of tumor size, age, and association with neurofibromatosis Type 2 (NF2) on outcome and treatment related toxicity. Results: Actuarial 2- and 5-year tumor control rates were 100% and 97.7%, respectively. Actuarial useful hearing preservation rate was 85% at 2 and 5 years. New hearing loss was diagnosed in 4 NF2 patients. Pretreatment normal facial nerve function was preserved in all cases. Two cases of new or impaired trigeminal nerve dysesthesia required medication. No other cranial nerve deficit was observed. In Patients without NF2 tumor size or age had no influence on tumor control and cranial nerve toxicity. Diagnosis of NF2 was associated with higher risk of hearing impairment (p = 0.0002), the hearing preservation rate in this subgroup was 60%. Conclusion: FSRT has been shown to be an effective means of local tumor control. Excellent hearing preservation rates and 5th and 7th nerve functional preservation rates were achieved. The results support the conclusion that FSRT can be recommended to patients with acoustic neuromas where special attention has to be taken to preserve useful hearing and normal cranial nerve function. For NF2 patients, FSRT may be the treatment of choice with superior functional outcome compared to treatment alternatives. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Inc.

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

4.7
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