Outcomes of stereotactic radiosurgery and hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for refractory Cushing’s disease
Hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (HSRT) for refractory Cushing’s disease may offer a condensed treatment schedule for patients with large tumors abutting the optic chiasm unsuitable for stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). To-date only four patients have been treated by HSRT in the published literature. We investigated the feasibility, toxicity, and efficacy of HSRT compared to SRS.
After approval, we retrospectively evaluated patients treated at our institution for refractory Cushing’s disease with SRS or HSRT. Study outcomes included biochemical control, time to biochemical control, local control, and late complications. Binary logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression evaluated predictors of outcomes.
Patients treated with SRS (n = 9) and HSRT (n = 9) were enrolled with median follow-up of 3.4 years. Clinicopathologic details were balanced between the cohorts. Local control was 100% in both cohorts. Time to biochemical control was 6.6. and 9.5 months in the SRS and HSRT cohorts, respectively (p = 0.6258). Two patients in each cohort required salvage bilateral adrenalectomy. Late complications including secondary malignancy, radionecrosis, cranial nerve neuropathy, and optic pathway injury were minimal for either cohort.
HSRT is an appropriate treatment approach for refractory Cushing’s disease, particularly for patients with large tumors abutting the optic apparatus. Prospective studies are needed to validate these findings and identify factors suggesting optimal fractionation approaches.
KeywordsCushing’s disease Fractionation Radiosurgery Pituitary adenoma Biochemical control Hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy
This work was supported by CTSA Award No. UL1TR000445 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent official views of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences or the National Institutes of Health.
There was no funding associated with this study.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Alexander Sherry declares that he has no conflicts of interest. Mohamed H. Khattab receives research funding support from Varian Medical Systems and Brainlab, Inc. Mark Xu declares that he has no conflicts of interest. Patrick Kelly declares that he has no conflicts of interest. Joshua Anderson declares that he has no conflicts of interest. Guozhen Luo declares that she has no conflicts of interest. Andrea Utz declares that she has no conflicts of interest. Lola Chambless declares that she has no conflicts of interest. Anthony Cmelak declares that he has no conflicts of interest. Albert Attia receives funding from Brainlab, AstraZeneca, and Novocure.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was waived by the IRB due to the determination of minimal risk of the study.
- 1.Cushing H (1932) The basophil adenomas of the pituitary body and their clinical manifestations (pituitary basophilism). Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp 50:137–195Google Scholar
- 15.Loeffler JS, Shih HA (2011) Radiation therapy in the management of pituitary adenomas [Review]. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 96:1992–2003. https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.1210/jc.2011-0251 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Pham CJ, Chang SD, Gibbs IC et al (2004) Preliminary visual field preservation after staged CyberKnife radiosurgery for perioptic lesions. Neurosurgery 54:799–810. https://doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.0000114261.18723.6A CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Adler JR, Gibbs IC, Puataweepong P, Chang SD (2006) Visual field preservation after multisession CyberKnife radiosurgery for perioptic lesions. Neurosurgery 59:2442–2454. https://doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.0000223512.09115.3E CrossRefGoogle Scholar