Background

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for benign intracranial meningiomas is an established treatment.

Objective

To summarize the literature and provide evidence-based practice guidelines on behalf of the International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society (ISRS).

Methods

Articles in English specific to SRS for benign intracranial meningioma, published from January 1964 to April 2018, were systematically reviewed. Three electronic databases, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register, were searched.

Results

Out of the 2844 studies identified, 305 had a full text evaluation and 27 studies met the criteria to be included in this analysis. All but one were retrospective studies. The 10-yr local control (LC) rate ranged from 71% to 100%. The 10-yr progression-free-survival rate ranged from 55% to 97%. The prescription dose ranged typically between 12 and 15 Gy, delivered in a single fraction. Toxicity rate was generally low.

Conclusion

The current literature supporting SRS for benign intracranial meningioma lacks level I and II evidence. However, when summarizing the large number of level III studies, it is clear that SRS can be recommended as an effective evidence-based treatment option (recommendation level II) for grade 1 meningioma.

Background

No guidelines have been published regarding stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) in the management of Spetzler-Martin grade I and II arteriovenous malformations (AVMs).

Objective

To establish SRS practice guidelines for grade I-II AVMs on the basis of a systematic literature review.

Methods

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-compliant search of Medline, Embase, and Scopus, 1986-2018, for publications reporting post-SRS outcomes in ≥10 grade I-II AVMs with a follow-up of ≥24 mo. Primary endpoints were obliteration and hemorrhage; secondary outcomes included Spetzler-Martin parameters, dosimetric variables, and "excellent" outcomes (defined as total obliteration without new post-SRS deficit).

Results

Of 447 abstracts screened, 8 were included (n = 1, level 2 evidence; n = 7, level 4 evidence), representing 1102 AVMs, of which 836 (76%) were grade II. Obliteration was achieved in 884 (80%) at a median of 37 mo; 66 hemorrhages (6%) occurred during a median follow-up of 68 mo. Total obliteration without hemorrhage was achieved in 78%. Of 836 grade II AVMs, Spetzler-Martin parameters were reported in 680: 377 were eloquent brain and 178 had deep venous drainage, totaling 555/680 (82%) high-risk SRS-treated grade II AVMs.

Conclusion

The literature regarding SRS for grade I-II AVM is low quality, limiting interpretation. Cautiously, we observed that SRS appears to be a safe, effective treatment for grade I-II AVM and may be considered a front-line treatment, particularly for lesions in deep or eloquent locations. Preceding publications may be influenced by selection bias, with favorable AVMs undergoing resection, whereas those at increased risk of complications and nonobliteration are disproportionately referred for SRS.

BACKGROUND: The choice of an appropriate strategy for intracanalicular vestibular schwannoma (ICVS) is still debated. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis with the aim to compare treatment outcomes amongst management strategies (conservative surveillance (CS), microsurgical resection (MR), or stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS)) aiming to inform guideline recommendations on behalf of the International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society (ISRS). METHODS: Using PRISMA guidelines, we reviewed manuscripts published between January 1990 and October 2021 referenced in PubMed or Embase. Inclusion criteria were peer-reviewed clinical studies or case series reporting a cohort of ICVS managed with CS, MR, or SRS. Primary outcome measures included tumor control, the need for additional treatment, hearing outcomes, and posttreatment neurological deficits. These were pooled using meta-analytical techniques and compared using meta-regression with random effect. RESULTS: Forty studies were included (2371 patients). The weighted pooled estimates for tumor control were 96% and 65% in SRS and CS series, respectively (P < .001). Need for further treatment was reported in 1%, 2%, and 25% for SRS, MR, and CS, respectively (P = .001). Hearing preservation was reported in 67%, 68%, and 55% for SRS, MR, and CS, respectively (P = .21). Persistent facial nerve deficit was reported in 0.1% and 10% for SRS and MR series, respectively (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: SRS is a noninvasive treatment with at least equivalent rates of tumor control and hearing preservation as compared to MR, with the caveat of better facial nerve preservation. As compared to CS, upfront SRS is an effective treatment in achieving tumor control with similar rates of hearing preservation.

Background

This systematic review reports on outcomes and toxicities following stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for non-functioning pituitary adenomas (NFAs) and presents consensus opinions regarding appropriate patient management.

Methods

Using the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, a systematic review was performed from articles of ≥10 patients with NFAs published prior to May 2018 from the Medline database using the key words "radiosurgery" and "pituitary" and/or "adenoma." Weighted random effects models were used to calculate pooled outcome estimates.

Results

Of the 678 abstracts reviewed, 35 full-text articles were included describing the outcomes of 2671 patients treated between 1971 and 2017 with either single fraction SRS or hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (HSRT). All studies were retrospective (level IV evidence). SRS was used in 27 studies (median dose: 15 Gy, range: 5-35 Gy) and HSRT in 8 studies (median total dose: 21 Gy, range: 12-25 Gy, delivered in 3-5 fractions). The 5-year random effects local control estimate after SRS was 94% (95% CI: 93.0-96.0%) and 97.0% (95% CI: 93.0-98.0%) after HSRT. The 10-year local control random effects estimate after SRS was 83.0% (95% CI: 77.0-88.0%). Post-SRS hypopituitarism was the most common treatment-related toxicity observed, with a random effects estimate of 21.0% (95% CI: 15.0-27.0%), whereas visual dysfunction or other cranial nerve injuries were uncommon (range: 0-7%).

Conclusions

SRS is an effective and safe treatment for patients with NFAs. Encouraging short-term data support HSRT for select patients, and mature outcomes are needed before definitive recommendations can be made. Clinical practice opinions were developed on behalf of the International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society (ISRS).

INTRODUCTION: Historical reservations regarding stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) brain metastases include concerns for short-interval and diffuse central nervous system (CNS) progression, poor prognoses, and increased neurological mortality specific to SCLC histology. We compared SRS outcomes for SCLC and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) where SRS is well established. METHODS: Multicenter first-line SRS outcomes for SCLC and NSCLC from 2000 to 2022 were retrospectively collected (n = 892 SCLC, n = 4785 NSCLC). Data from the prospective Japanese Leksell Gamma Knife Society (JLGK0901) clinical trial of first-line SRS were analyzed as a comparison cohort (n = 98 SCLC, n = 814 NSCLC). Overall survival (OS) and CNS progression were analyzed using Cox proportional hazard and Fine-Gray models, respectively, with multivariable adjustment for cofactors including age, sex, performance status, year, extracranial disease status, and brain metastasis number and volume. Mutation-stratified analyses were performed in propensity score-matched retrospective cohorts of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) positive NSCLC, mutation-negative NSCLC, and SCLC. RESULTS: OS was superior for patients with NSCLC compared to SCLC in the retrospective dataset (median OS = 10.5 vs 8.6 months; P < .001) and in the JLGK0901 dataset. Hazard estimates for first CNS progression favoring NSCLC were similar in both datasets but reached statistical significance in the retrospective dataset only (multivariable hazard ratio = 0.82, 95% confidence interval = 0.73 to 0.92, P = .001). In the propensity score-matched cohorts, there were continued OS advantages for NSCLC patients (median OS = 23.7 [EGFR and ALK positive NSCLC] vs 13.6 [mutation-negative NSCLC] vs 10.4 months [SCLC], pairwise P values < 0.001), but no statistically significant differences in CNS progression were observed in the matched cohorts. Neurological mortality and number of lesions at CNS progression were similar for NSCLC and SCLC patients. Leptomeningeal progression was increased in patients with NSCLC compared to SCLC in the retrospective dataset only (multivariable hazard ratio = 1.61, 95% confidence interval = 1.14 to 2.26, P = .007). CONCLUSIONS: After SRS, SCLC histology was associated with shorter OS compared to NSCLC. CNS progression occurred earlier in SCLC patients overall but was similar in patients matched on baseline factors. SCLC was not associated with increased neurological mortality, number of lesions at CNS progression, or leptomeningeal progression compared to NSCLC. These findings may better inform clinical expectations and individualized decision making regarding SRS for SCLC patients.