1
|
Ortholan C, Colin P, Serrano B, Bouet T, Garnier N, le Guyader M, Amblard R, Villeneuve R, Chanalet S, Alchaar H, Bozzolo E, Lanteri-Minet M, Fontaine D. Radiosurgery for classical trigeminal neuralgia: impact of the shot size on clinical outcome. J Headache Pain 2023; 24:51. [PMID: 37170187 PMCID: PMC10173482 DOI: 10.1186/s10194-023-01583-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/09/2023] [Accepted: 04/21/2023] [Indexed: 05/13/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study compares the outcome of patients suffering from medically refractory classical trigeminal neuralgia (TN) after treatment with radiosurgery using two different shot sizes (5- and 6-mm). METHODS All patients included in this open, prospective, non-controlled study were treated in a single institution for TN (95 cases in 93 patients) with LINear ACcelerators (LINAC) single-dose radiosurgery using a 5-mm shot (43 cases) or 6-mm shot (52 cases). The target was positioned on the intracisternal part of the trigeminal nerve. RESULTS The mean Dmax (D0.035) to the brainstem was higher in the 6-mm group: 12.6 vs 21.3 Gy (p < 0.001). Pain relief was significantly better in the 6-mm group: at 12 and 24 months in the 6-mm group the rate of pain-free patients was 90.2 and 87.8%, respectively vs. 73.6 and 73.6% in the 5-mm group (p = 0.045). At 12 and 24 months post-radiosurgical hypoesthesia was more frequent in the 6-mm group: 47.0 and 58% vs.11.3 and 30.8% in the 5-mm group (p = 0.002). To investigate the effect of cone diameter and the dose to the brainstem on outcomes, patients were stratified into three groups: group 1 = 5-mm shot, (all Dmax < 25 Gy, 43 cases), group 2 = 6-mm shot, Dmax < 25 Gy (32 cases), group 3 = 6-mm shot Dmax > 25 Gy (20 cases). At 12 months the rates of hypoesthesia were 11.3, 33.5 and 76.0%, respectively in groups 1, 2 and 3 (p < 0.001) and the rates of recurrence of pain were 26.4, 16.5 and 5%, respectively, (p = 0.11). CONCLUSION LINAC treatment with a 6-mm shot provided excellent control of pain, but increased the rate of trigeminal nerve dysfunction, especially when the maximum dose to the brainstem was higher than 25 Gy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cécile Ortholan
- Department of Radiotherapy, Centre Hospitalier Princesse Grace, Monaco, Monaco.
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Centre Hospitalier Princesse Grace, Monaco, 98000, Monaco.
| | - Philippe Colin
- Department of Radiotherapy, Centre Hospitalier Princesse Grace, Monaco, Monaco
| | - Benjamin Serrano
- Department of Medical Physics, Centre Hospitalier Princesse Grace, Monaco, Monaco
| | - Thibault Bouet
- Pain Clinic, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice, Université Côte d'Azur, Nice, France
| | - Nicolas Garnier
- Department of Medical Physics, Centre Hospitalier Princesse Grace, Monaco, Monaco
| | - Maud le Guyader
- Department of Radiotherapy, Centre Hospitalier Princesse Grace, Monaco, Monaco
| | - Regis Amblard
- Department of Medical Physics, Centre Hospitalier Princesse Grace, Monaco, Monaco
| | - Rémy Villeneuve
- Department of Medical Physics, Centre Hospitalier Princesse Grace, Monaco, Monaco
| | - Stéphane Chanalet
- Department of Radiology, Centre Hospitalier Princesse Grace, Monaco, Monaco
- Department of Radiology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice, Université Côte d'Azur, Nice, France
| | - Haiel Alchaar
- Pain Clinic, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice, Université Côte d'Azur, Nice, France
| | - Eric Bozzolo
- Pain Clinic, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice, Université Côte d'Azur, Nice, France
- FHU Inovpain, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice, Université Côte d'Azur, Nice, France
| | - Michel Lanteri-Minet
- Pain Clinic, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice, Université Côte d'Azur, Nice, France
- FHU Inovpain, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice, Université Côte d'Azur, Nice, France
- INSERM/UdA, U1107, Neuro-Dol, Trigeminal Pain and Migraine, University Clermont-Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France
| | - Denys Fontaine
- FHU Inovpain, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice, Université Côte d'Azur, Nice, France
- Department of Neurosurgery, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice, Université Côte d'Azur, Nice, France
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Maksoud Z, Schmidt MA, Huang Y, Rutzner S, Mansoorian S, Weissmann T, Bert C, Distel L, Semrau S, Lettmaier S, Eyüpoglu I, Fietkau R, Putz F. Transient Enlargement in Meningiomas Treated with Stereotactic Radiotherapy. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14061547. [PMID: 35326697 PMCID: PMC8946188 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14061547] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/21/2022] [Revised: 03/10/2022] [Accepted: 03/11/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Accurate assessment of treatment efficacy is a prerequisite for the improvement in therapeutic outcomes in clinical trials. However, it is very challenging to accurately track the size of meningiomas after radiotherapy, because of their complex shapes and often slow growth. Measuring the whole tumor volume as opposed to simple diameter measurements to assess treatment efficacy, therefore, is very promising but little is known on expected volumetric changes of meningiomas following radiotherapy. Therefore, in this study, we meticulously investigated volumetric changes in meningiomas following radiotherapy incorporating volumetric measurements from 468 MRI studies and evaluated newly proposed RANO volumetric criteria in the context of radiotherapy. We found that temporary tumor enlargement after radiotherapy overall was rare but occurred significantly more frequently after high than after low single doses of radiation, represented an important differential diagnosis to tumor progression and would have skewed results in a clinical trial if not accounted for. Abstract To investigate the occurrence of pseudoprogression/transient enlargement in meningiomas after stereotactic radiotherapy (RT) and to evaluate recently proposed volumetric RANO meningioma criteria for response assessment in the context of RT. Sixty-nine meningiomas (benign: 90%, atypical: 10%) received stereotactic RT from January 2005–May 2018. A total of 468 MRI studies were segmented longitudinally during a median follow-up of 42.3 months. Best response and local control were evaluated according to recently proposed volumetric RANO criteria. Transient enlargement was defined as volumetric increase ≥20% followed by a subsequent regression ≥20%. The mean best volumetric response was −23% change from baseline (range, −86% to +19%). According to RANO, the best volumetric response was SD in 81% (56/69), MR in 13% (9/69) and PR in 6% (4/69). Transient enlargement occurred in only 6% (4/69) post RT but would have represented 60% (3/5) of cases with progressive disease if not accounted for. Transient enlargement was characterized by a mean maximum volumetric increase of +181% (range, +24% to +389 %) with all cases occurring in the first year post-RT (range, 4.1–10.3 months). Transient enlargement was significantly more frequent with SRS or hypofractionation than with conventional fractionation (25% vs. 2%, p = 0.015). Five-year volumetric control was 97.8% if transient enlargement was recognized but 92.9% if not accounted for. Transient enlargement/pseudoprogression in the first year following SRS and hypofractionated RT represents an important differential diagnosis, especially because of the high volumetric control achieved with stereotactic RT. Meningioma enlargement during subsequent post-RT follow-up and after conventional fractionation should raise suspicion for tumor progression.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ziad Maksoud
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Universitaetsstraße 27, 91054 Erlangen, Germany; (Z.M.); (Y.H.); (S.R.); (S.M.); (T.W.); (C.B.); (L.D.); (S.S.); (S.L.); (R.F.)
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN (CCC ER-EMN), 91054 Erlangen, Germany; (M.A.S.); (I.E.)
| | - Manuel Alexander Schmidt
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN (CCC ER-EMN), 91054 Erlangen, Germany; (M.A.S.); (I.E.)
- Department of Neuroradiology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Schwabachanlage 6, 91054 Erlangen, Germany
| | - Yixing Huang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Universitaetsstraße 27, 91054 Erlangen, Germany; (Z.M.); (Y.H.); (S.R.); (S.M.); (T.W.); (C.B.); (L.D.); (S.S.); (S.L.); (R.F.)
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN (CCC ER-EMN), 91054 Erlangen, Germany; (M.A.S.); (I.E.)
| | - Sandra Rutzner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Universitaetsstraße 27, 91054 Erlangen, Germany; (Z.M.); (Y.H.); (S.R.); (S.M.); (T.W.); (C.B.); (L.D.); (S.S.); (S.L.); (R.F.)
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN (CCC ER-EMN), 91054 Erlangen, Germany; (M.A.S.); (I.E.)
| | - Sina Mansoorian
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Universitaetsstraße 27, 91054 Erlangen, Germany; (Z.M.); (Y.H.); (S.R.); (S.M.); (T.W.); (C.B.); (L.D.); (S.S.); (S.L.); (R.F.)
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN (CCC ER-EMN), 91054 Erlangen, Germany; (M.A.S.); (I.E.)
| | - Thomas Weissmann
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Universitaetsstraße 27, 91054 Erlangen, Germany; (Z.M.); (Y.H.); (S.R.); (S.M.); (T.W.); (C.B.); (L.D.); (S.S.); (S.L.); (R.F.)
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN (CCC ER-EMN), 91054 Erlangen, Germany; (M.A.S.); (I.E.)
| | - Christoph Bert
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Universitaetsstraße 27, 91054 Erlangen, Germany; (Z.M.); (Y.H.); (S.R.); (S.M.); (T.W.); (C.B.); (L.D.); (S.S.); (S.L.); (R.F.)
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN (CCC ER-EMN), 91054 Erlangen, Germany; (M.A.S.); (I.E.)
| | - Luitpold Distel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Universitaetsstraße 27, 91054 Erlangen, Germany; (Z.M.); (Y.H.); (S.R.); (S.M.); (T.W.); (C.B.); (L.D.); (S.S.); (S.L.); (R.F.)
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN (CCC ER-EMN), 91054 Erlangen, Germany; (M.A.S.); (I.E.)
| | - Sabine Semrau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Universitaetsstraße 27, 91054 Erlangen, Germany; (Z.M.); (Y.H.); (S.R.); (S.M.); (T.W.); (C.B.); (L.D.); (S.S.); (S.L.); (R.F.)
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN (CCC ER-EMN), 91054 Erlangen, Germany; (M.A.S.); (I.E.)
| | - Sebastian Lettmaier
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Universitaetsstraße 27, 91054 Erlangen, Germany; (Z.M.); (Y.H.); (S.R.); (S.M.); (T.W.); (C.B.); (L.D.); (S.S.); (S.L.); (R.F.)
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN (CCC ER-EMN), 91054 Erlangen, Germany; (M.A.S.); (I.E.)
| | - Ilker Eyüpoglu
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN (CCC ER-EMN), 91054 Erlangen, Germany; (M.A.S.); (I.E.)
- Department of Neurosurgery, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Schwabachanlage 6, 91054 Erlangen, Germany
| | - Rainer Fietkau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Universitaetsstraße 27, 91054 Erlangen, Germany; (Z.M.); (Y.H.); (S.R.); (S.M.); (T.W.); (C.B.); (L.D.); (S.S.); (S.L.); (R.F.)
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN (CCC ER-EMN), 91054 Erlangen, Germany; (M.A.S.); (I.E.)
| | - Florian Putz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Universitaetsstraße 27, 91054 Erlangen, Germany; (Z.M.); (Y.H.); (S.R.); (S.M.); (T.W.); (C.B.); (L.D.); (S.S.); (S.L.); (R.F.)
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN (CCC ER-EMN), 91054 Erlangen, Germany; (M.A.S.); (I.E.)
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +49-9131-853-4080
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Lovo EE, Moreira A, Barahona KC, Torres B, Blanco A, Caceros V, Campos F, Gorgulho A. Gamma Ray Radiosurgery for Trigeminal Neuralgia: Targeting Proximal or Distal to the Dorsal Root Entry Zone. Cureus 2021; 13:e15194. [PMID: 34178514 PMCID: PMC8218962 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.15194] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction Stereotactic radiosurgery for trigeminal neuralgia (TN) has gained interest among patients who are not suitable for surgical procedures. Although two target zones are more recognized - dorsal root entry zone (DREZ) and retrogasserian zone (RGZ) - the optimal targeting technique remains controversial in terms of clinical outcomes and rates of complications. Therefore, various modifications to the radiosurgical technique for TN have been made. Objective This study aimed to determine the differences in shoot location (i.e., RGZ vs. DREZ) regarding effectiveness and adverse effects in patients with medically refractory TN. Additionally, we evaluated the effect of the integral dose (ID) on treatment outcomes and complications. Methods We present a retrospective cohort study of 49 patients with primary, drug-resistant TN treated with gamma knife radiosurgery targeting the distal and proximal parts of the nerve regarding the DREZ with a prescription dose of 90 Gy (80 to 96 Gy). A subset of these patients (n=38) where the ID could be measured to the nerve was correlated to treatment outcomes and complications. Results The median follow-up time was 36 months for RGZ and 51 months for DREZ targets. Neurovascular conflict was identified in 87.5% of the RGZ group and 88.2% of the DREZ group. Using the Barrow Neurological Institute (BNI) pain score, 26 (81.3%) RGZ and 12 (70.6%) DREZ patients were successfully treated (BNI I-IIIb; p=0.02). Seven (21.9%) RGZ and eight (47.1%) DREZ patients reported complete pain relief without medication (BNI I). Time response was 22.3 days for RGZ and 34.1 days for DREZ (p=0.277). There were 10 (31.3%) patients in the RGZ group with associated complications versus six (35.3%) patients in the DREZ group (χ2=0.0826, degree of freedom=1, p=0.773). Treatment outcomes using higher ID were better in the RGZ than DREZ (81.8% vs. 57.1, respectively), and a significant association was found between a higher ID delivered to the nerve and the development of complications (p=0.02). Conclusion Based on the obtained results, the RGZ was a more effective targeting area with better treatment outcomes without significant differences in complication rates than DREZ. A higher ID at the RGZ than DREZ had a greater therapeutical effect. Further investigation regarding the optimal target area along the ID delivered and clinical outcomes are required.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eduardo E Lovo
- Radiosurgery, International Cancer Center, Diagnostic Hospital, San Salvador, SLV
| | - Alejandra Moreira
- Neurosurgery, International Cancer Center, Diagnostic Hospital, San Salvador, SLV
| | - Kaory C Barahona
- Radiation Oncology, International Cancer Center, Diagnostic Hospital, San Salvador, SLV
| | - Boheris Torres
- Neurosurgery, International Cancer Center, Diagnostic Hospital, San Salvador, SLV
| | | | - Victor Caceros
- Radiosurgery, International Cancer Center, Diagnostic Hospital, San Salvador, SLV
| | - Fidel Campos
- Radiosurgery, International Cancer Center, Diagnostic Hospital, San Salvador, SLV
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Oft D, Schmidt MA, Weissmann T, Roesch J, Mengling V, Masitho S, Bert C, Lettmaier S, Frey B, Distel LV, Fietkau R, Putz F. Volumetric Regression in Brain Metastases After Stereotactic Radiotherapy: Time Course, Predictors, and Significance. Front Oncol 2021; 10:590980. [PMID: 33489888 PMCID: PMC7820888 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.590980] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/03/2020] [Accepted: 11/26/2020] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Background There is insufficient understanding of the natural course of volumetric regression in brain metastases after stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) and optimal volumetric criteria for the assessment of response and progression in radiotherapy clinical trials for brain metastases are currently unknown. Methods Volumetric analysis via whole-tumor segmentation in contrast-enhanced 1 mm³-isotropic T1-Mprage sequences before SRT and during follow-up. A total of 3,145 MRI studies of 419 brain metastases from 189 patients were segmented. Progression was defined using a volumetric extension of the RANO-BM criteria. A subset of 205 metastases without progression/radionecrosis during their entire follow-up of at least 3 months was used to study the natural course of volumetric regression after SRT. Predictors for volumetric regression were investigated. A second subset of 179 metastases was used to investigate the prognostic significance of volumetric response at 3 months (defined as ≥20% and ≥65% volume reduction, respectively) for subsequent local control. Results Median relative metastasis volume post-SRT was 66.9% at 6 weeks, 38.6% at 3 months, 17.7% at 6 months, 2.7% at 12 months and 0.0% at 24 months. Radioresistant histology and FSRT vs. SRS were associated with reduced tumor regression for all time points. In multivariate linear regression, radiosensitive histology (p=0.006) was the only significant predictor for metastasis regression at 3 months. Volumetric regression ≥20% at 3 months post-SRT was the only significant prognostic factor for subsequent control in multivariate analysis (HR 0.63, p=0.023), whereas regression ≥65% was no significant predictor. Conclusions Volumetric regression post-SRT does not occur at a constant rate but is most pronounced in the first 6 weeks to 3 months. Despite decreasing over time, volumetric regression continues beyond 6 months post-radiotherapy and may lead to complete resolution of controlled lesions by 24 months. Radioresistant histology is associated with slower regression. We found that a cutoff of ≥20% regression for the volumetric definition of response at 3 months post-SRT was predictive for subsequent control whereas the currently proposed definition of ≥65% was not. These results have implications for standardized volumetric criteria in future radiotherapy trials for brain metastases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dominik Oft
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Manuel Alexander Schmidt
- Department of Neuroradiology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Thomas Weissmann
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Johannes Roesch
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Veit Mengling
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Siti Masitho
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Christoph Bert
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Sebastian Lettmaier
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Benjamin Frey
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Luitpold Valentin Distel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Rainer Fietkau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Florian Putz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Putz F, Weissmann T, Oft D, Schmidt MA, Roesch J, Siavooshhaghighi H, Filimonova I, Schmitter C, Mengling V, Bert C, Frey B, Lettmaier S, Distel LV, Semrau S, Fietkau R. FSRT vs. SRS in Brain Metastases-Differences in Local Control and Radiation Necrosis-A Volumetric Study. Front Oncol 2020; 10:559193. [PMID: 33102223 PMCID: PMC7554610 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.559193] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/05/2020] [Accepted: 08/12/2020] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: While the role of stereotactic radiotherapy for brain metastases is increasing, evidence on the comparative efficacy and safety of fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT) and single-session radiosurgery (SRS) is scarce. Methods: Longitudinal volumetric analysis was performed in a consecutive cohort of 120 patients and 190 brain metastases (>0.065 cm3 in volume / > ~5 mm in diameter) treated exclusively with FSRT (n = 98) and SRS (n = 92), respectively. A total of 972 tumor segmentations was used, averaging 5.1 time points per metastasis. Progression was defined using a volumetric extension of the RANO-BM criteria. Local control and radionecrosis were compared for lesions treated with FSRT and SRS, respectively. Results: Metastases treated with FSRT were significantly larger at baseline (mean, 4.66 vs. 0.40 cm3, p < 0.001). Biologically effective dose (BED) for metastases (α/β = 12, linear-quadratic-cubic model) was significantly associated with local control, whereas BED for normal brain (α/β = 2, linear-quadratic model) was significantly associated with radionecrosis. Median time to local progression was 22.9 months in the FSRT group compared to 14.5 months in the SRS group (p = 0.022). Overall radionecrosis rate at 12 months was 3.4% for FSRT and 14.8% for SRS (p = 0.010). Radionecrosis °IV requiring resection with histologic proof of radiation necrosis also was significantly reduced in the FSRT group (FSRT 0.0% vs. SRS 3.9%, p = 0.041). In multivariate analysis, FSRT was associated with reduced risk of progression (HR 0.47, p = 0.015) and reduced risk of radionecrosis (HR 0.18, p = 0.045). Conclusions: This volumetric study provides initial evidence that the improvements in therapeutic ratio expected for FSRT in larger brain metastases, might equally extend into the domain of smaller metastases, traditionally less considered for fractionated treatment. FSRT might constitute an important tool to further increase local control and reduce radionecrosis risk in stereotactic radiotherapy for brain metastases, that should be assessed in randomized intervention trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Florian Putz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Thomas Weissmann
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Dominik Oft
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Manuel Alexander Schmidt
- Department of Neuroradiology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Johannes Roesch
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Hadi Siavooshhaghighi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Irina Filimonova
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Charlotte Schmitter
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Veit Mengling
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Christoph Bert
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Benjamin Frey
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Sebastian Lettmaier
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Luitpold Valentin Distel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Sabine Semrau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Rainer Fietkau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Blanck O, Buergy D, Vens M, Eidinger L, Zaman A, Krug D, Rudic B, Boda-Heggemann J, Giordano FA, Boldt LH, Mehrhof F, Budach V, Schweikard A, Olbrich D, König IR, Siebert FA, Vonthein R, Dunst J, Bonnemeier H. Radiosurgery for ventricular tachycardia: preclinical and clinical evidence and study design for a German multi-center multi-platform feasibility trial (RAVENTA). Clin Res Cardiol 2020; 109:1319-1332. [PMID: 32306083 PMCID: PMC7588361 DOI: 10.1007/s00392-020-01650-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 35] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/20/2019] [Accepted: 04/08/2020] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
Background Single-session high-dose stereotactic radiotherapy (radiosurgery) is a new treatment option for otherwise untreatable patients suffering from refractory ventricular tachycardia (VT). In the initial single-center case studies and feasibility trials, cardiac radiosurgery has led to significant reductions of VT burden with limited toxicities. However, the full safety profile remains largely unknown. Methods/design In this multi-center, multi-platform clinical feasibility trial which we plan is to assess the initial safety profile of radiosurgery for ventricular tachycardia (RAVENTA). High-precision image-guided single-session radiosurgery with 25 Gy will be delivered to the VT substrate determined by high-definition endocardial electrophysiological mapping. The primary endpoint is safety in terms of successful dose delivery without severe treatment-related side effects in the first 30 days after radiosurgery. Secondary endpoints are the assessment of VT burden, reduction of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) interventions [shock, anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP)], mid-term side effects and quality-of-life (QoL) in the first year after radiosurgery. The planned sample size is 20 patients with the goal of demonstrating safety and feasibility of cardiac radiosurgery in ≥ 70% of the patients. Quality assurance is provided by initial contouring and planning benchmark studies, joint multi-center treatment decisions, sequential patient safety evaluations, interim analyses, independent monitoring, and a dedicated data and safety monitoring board. Discussion RAVENTA will be the first study to provide the initial robust multi-center multi-platform prospective data on the therapeutic value of cardiac radiosurgery for ventricular tachycardia. Trial registration number NCT03867747 (clinicaltrials.gov). Registered March 8, 2019. The study was initiated on November 18th, 2019, and is currently recruiting patients. Graphic abstract ![]()
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Oliver Blanck
- Klinik für Strahlentherapie, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Straße 3, Haus 50, 24105, Kiel, Germany.
| | - Daniel Buergy
- Klinik für Strahlentherapie und Radioonkologie, Universitätsmedizin Mannheim, Universität Heidelberg, Medizinische Fakultät Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany
| | - Maren Vens
- Universität zu Lübeck, Zentrum für Klinische Studien, Lübeck, Germany.,Institut für Medizinische Biometrie und Statistik, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
| | - Lina Eidinger
- Klinik für Strahlentherapie, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Straße 3, Haus 50, 24105, Kiel, Germany.,Klinik für Innere Medizin III, Abteilung für Elektrophysiologie und Rhythmologie, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany
| | - Adrian Zaman
- Klinik für Innere Medizin III, Abteilung für Elektrophysiologie und Rhythmologie, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany
| | - David Krug
- Klinik für Strahlentherapie, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Straße 3, Haus 50, 24105, Kiel, Germany
| | - Boris Rudic
- Medizinische Klinik I, Abteilung für Elektrophysiologie und Rhythmologie, Universitätsmedizin Mannheim, Universität Heidelberg, Medizinische Fakultät Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany
| | - Judit Boda-Heggemann
- Klinik für Strahlentherapie und Radioonkologie, Universitätsmedizin Mannheim, Universität Heidelberg, Medizinische Fakultät Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany
| | - Frank A Giordano
- Klinik für Strahlentherapie und Radioonkologie, Universitätsmedizin Mannheim, Universität Heidelberg, Medizinische Fakultät Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany
| | - Leif-Hendrik Boldt
- Medizinische Klinik mit Schwerpunkt Kardiologie (CVK), Abteilung für Elektrophysiologie und Rhythmologie, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Felix Mehrhof
- Klinik für Radioonkologie und Strahlentherapie, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Volker Budach
- Klinik für Radioonkologie und Strahlentherapie, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Achim Schweikard
- Institut für Robotik und Kognitive Systeme, Universität zu Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
| | - Denise Olbrich
- Universität zu Lübeck, Zentrum für Klinische Studien, Lübeck, Germany
| | - Inke R König
- Institut für Medizinische Biometrie und Statistik, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
| | - Frank-Andre Siebert
- Klinik für Strahlentherapie, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Straße 3, Haus 50, 24105, Kiel, Germany
| | - Reinhard Vonthein
- Institut für Medizinische Biometrie und Statistik, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
| | - Jürgen Dunst
- Klinik für Strahlentherapie, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Straße 3, Haus 50, 24105, Kiel, Germany
| | - Hendrik Bonnemeier
- Klinik für Innere Medizin III, Abteilung für Elektrophysiologie und Rhythmologie, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany
| |
Collapse
|