Comparative clinical dosimetry with X-knife and gamma knife

Single isocenter stereotactic irradiation for multiple brain metastases: current situation and prospects

The prognosis of patients with brain metastases has dramatically improved, and long-term tumor control and reduction of the risk of late toxicities, including neurocognitive dysfunction, are important for patient quality of life. Stereotactic irradiation for multiple brain metastases, rather than whole-brain radiotherapy, can result in high local control rate with low incidence of neurocognitive deterioration and leukoencephalopathy. Recent advances in radiotherapy devices, treatment-planning systems, and image-guided radiotherapy can realize single isocenter stereotactic irradiation for multiple brain metastases (SI-STI-MBM), in which only one isocenter is sufficient to treat multiple brain metastases simultaneously. SI-STI-MBM has expanded the indications for linear accelerator-based stereotactic irradiation and considerably reduced patient burden. This review summarizes the background, methods, clinical outcomes, and specific consideration points of SI-STI-MBM. In addition, the prospects of SI-STI-MBM are addressed.

Gamma Knife Radiosurgery For Brain Vascular Malformations: Current Evidence And Future Tasks

Gamma Knife radiosurgery (GKRS) has long been used for treating brain vascular malformations, including arteriovenous malformations (AVMs), dural arteriovenous fistulas (DAVFs), and cavernous malformations (CMs). Herein, current evidence and controversies regarding the role of stereotactic radiosurgery for vascular malformations are described. 1) It has already been established that GKRS achieves 70–85% obliteration rates after a 3–5-year latency period for small to medium-sized AVMs. However, late radiation-induced adverse events (RAEs) including cyst formation, encapsulated hematoma, and tumorigenesis have recently been recognized, and the associated risks, clinical courses, and outcomes are under investigation. SRS-based therapeutic strategies for relatively large AVMs, including staged GKRS and a combination of GKRS and embolization, continue to be developed, though their advantages and disadvantages warrant further investigation. The role of GKRS in managing unruptured AVMs remains controversial since a prospective trial showed no benefit of treatment, necessitating further consideration of this issue. 2) Regarding DAVFs, GKRS achieves 41–90% obliteration rates at the second post-GKRS year with a hemorrhage rate below 5%. Debate continues as to whether GKRS might serve as a first-line solo therapeutic modality given its latency period. Although the post-GKRS outcomes are thought to differ among lesion locations, further outcome analyses regarding DAVF locations are required. 3) GKRS is generally accepted as an alternative for small or medium-sized CMs in which surgery is considered to be too risky. The reported hemorrhage rates ranged from 0.5–5% after GKRS. Higher dose treatments (>15 Gy) were performed during the learning curve, while, with the current standard treatment, a dose range of 12–15 Gy is generally selected, and has resulted in acceptable complication rates (< 5%). Nevertheless, further elucidation of long-term outcomes is essential.