Experience with hypofractionated stereotactic radiosurgery in a series of patients with skull base tumors
Introduction and objective
Although the effectiveness of single-fraction brain stereotactic radiosurgery has been extensively demonstrated, recent evidence is suggesting that when skull base lesions are the targets, radiation near critical structures (e.g., optic nerves, and brainstem) should be reduced to avoid radiotoxic effects, with the risk of treatment inefficacy. Hence, in these tumors, hypofractionated stereotactic radiosurgery (HSRS) would offer a therapeutical opportunity. Here, we present our experience with this modality in the management of patients with skull base tumors.
A series of patients with skull base tumors was retrospectively analyzed to evaluate the treatment with HSRS. The primary endpoint was tumor control in post-treatment imaging. Age, sex, tumor histology, tumor volume, type of radiation protocol, pre-treatment Karnofsky performance status (KPS), previous neurosurgery, and prior radiotherapy were analyzed.
A total of 84 patients were treated between January/2009 to January/2017. Median age: 51.5 years. Female gender: 53.6%. There was 92.7% of non-progression after HSRS, with a median f/u of 36 months. Main tumors treated were pituitary adenomas, acoustic schwannomas, and skull base meningioma. Most of the patients were treated with a 5-day fraction scheme of a 25 Gy total dose. No late radiotoxicity was observed. In multivariate analysis, a high KPS was associated with non-progression.
In our series of patients, the high incidence of non-progression of tumors indicated that HSRS could be a therapeutic option in some cases of skull base lesions, mainly residuals or tumoral recurrences of pituitary adenomas, schwannomas, and meningiomas.
KeywordsStereotactic radiosurgery Skull base tumors LINAC Hypofractionation
No funding was received for this study.
Compliance with ethical standards
Our Institutional Review Board approved the execution of the study.
Conflict of interest
Author Diego A. Hernández declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author Juan M Zaloff Dakoff declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author Cynthia Auad declares that she has no conflict of interest. Author Victor E. Derechinsky declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author Roberto Rosler declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author Julio García declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author Luisa Rafailovici declares that she has no conflict of interest. Author María L. Filomia declares that she has no conflict of interest.
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. This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. During the processing of data at the time of analysis, the patient’s identity remained anonymous.
- 15.Betti O, Derechinsky V (1983) Multiple-beam stereotactic irradiation. Neurochirurgie 29(4):295–298 FrenchGoogle Scholar
- 16.Betti OO, Derechinsky VE (1984) Hyperselective encephalic irradiation with linear accelerator. Acta Neurochir Suppl 33:385–390Google Scholar
- 17.Betti OO, Galmarini D, Derechinsky V (1991) Radiosurgery with a linear accelerator. Methodol Aspects Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 57(1–2):87–98Google Scholar
- 18.Emami B (2013) Tolerance of normal tissue to therapeutic radiation. Reports of Radiother Oncol 1(1):35–48Google Scholar
- 22.Chun SG, Nedzi LA, Choe KS, Abdulrahman RE, Chen SA, Yordy JS, Timmerman RD, Kutz JW, Isaacson B (2014) A retrospective analysis of tumor volumetric responses to five fraction stereotactic radiotherapy for paragangliomas of the head and neck (glomus tumors). Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 92(3):153–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Combs SE, Adeberg S, Dittmar JO, Welzel T, Rieken S, Habermehl D, Huber PE, Debus J (2013) Skull base meningiomas: Long-term results and patient self-reported outcome in 507 patients treated with fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT) or intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Radiother Oncol 106(2):186–191 2012 Aug 18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Combs SE, Ganswindt U, Foote RL, Kondziolka D, Tonn JC (2012) State-of-the-art treatment alternatives for base of skull meningiomas: complementing and controversial indications for neurosurgery, stereotactic and robotic based radiosurgery or modern fractionated radiation techniques. Radiat Oncol 7:226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Han J, Girvigian MR, Chen JC, Miller MJ, Lodin K, Rahimian J, Arellano A, Cahan BL, Kaptein JS (2014) A comparative study of stereotactic radiosurgery, hypofractionated, and fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy in the treatment of skull base meningioma. Am J Clin Oncol 37(3):255–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 37.Navarria P, Pessina F, Cozzi L, Clerici E, Villa E, Ascolese AM, De Rose F, Comito T, Franzese C, D'Agostino G, Lobefalo F, Fogliata A, Reggiori G, Fornari M, Tomatis S, Bello L, Scorsetti M (2015) Hypofractionated stereotactic radiation therapy in skull base meningiomas. J Neuro-Oncol 124(2):283–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 38.Patibandla MR, Lee CC, Sheehan J Stereotactic radiosurgery of central skull base meningioma’s - volumetric evaluation and long-term outcomes. World Neurosurg. 2017Google Scholar
- 44.Collen C, Ampe B, Gevaert T, Moens M, Linthout N, De Ridder M, Verellen D, D’Haens J, Storme G (2011) Single fraction versus fractionated linac-based stereotactic radiotherapy for vestibular schwannoma: a single institution experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 81(4):e503–e509CrossRefGoogle Scholar