4.6 Article

Radiosurgery for Cushing's disease after failed transsphenoidal surgery

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY
卷 93, 期 5, 页码 738-742

出版社

AMER ASSOC NEUROLOGICAL SURGEONS
DOI: 10.3171/jns.2000.93.5.0738

关键词

Cushing's disease; pituitary tumor; gamma knife; radiosurgery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Object. Although transsphenoidal surgery has become the standard of care for Cushing's disease, it is often unsuccessful in normalizing cortisol production. In this study the authors investigate the safety and efficacy of gamma knife radiosurgery (GKRS) for Cushing's disease after failed transsphenoidal surgery. Methods. The records of all patients who underwent GKRS at the authors' institution after unsuccessful transsphenoidal surgery for Cushing's disease were retrospectively reviewed. Successful treatment was considered a normal or below-normal 24-hour urinary free cortisol (UFC) level. Records were also evaluated for relapse, new-onset endocrine deficiencies, interval change in tumor size, and visual complications. Forty-three patients underwent 44 gamma knife procedures with follow up ranging from 18 to 113 months (mean 39.1, median 44 months). Normal 24-hour UFC levels a were achieved in 27 patients (63%) at an average time from treatment of 12.1 months (range 3-48 months). Three patients had a recurrence of Cushing's disease at 19, 37, and 38 months, respectively, after radiosurgery. New endocrine deficiencies were noted in seven patients (16%). Follow-up magnetic resonance images obtained in 33 patients revealed a decrease in tumor size in 24, no change in nine, and an increase in size in none of the patients. One patient developed a quadrantanopsia 14 months after radiosurgery despite having received a dose of only 0.7 Gy to the optic tract. Conclusions. Gamma knife radiosurgery appears to be safe and effective for the treatment of Cushing's disease refractory to pituitary surgery. Delayed recurrences and new hormone deficiencies may occur, indicating the necessity for regular long-term follow up.

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