Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Radiat Oncol. 2017 Jun 24;12(1):106. doi: 10.1186/s13014-017-0840-x.

Stereotactic radiosurgery versus whole-brain radiotherapy after intracranial metastasis resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Author information

1
Cushing Neurosurgery Outcomes Center (CNOC), Department of Neurosurgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
2
Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
3
Department of Neurosurgery, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Center Utrecht, HP G03.124, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
4
School of Pharmacy, MCPHS University, Boston, MA, USA.
5
Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
6
Cushing Neurosurgery Outcomes Center (CNOC), Department of Neurosurgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. m.l.d.broekman-4@umcutrecht.nl.
7
Department of Neurosurgery, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Center Utrecht, HP G03.124, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands. m.l.d.broekman-4@umcutrecht.nl.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

In patients with one to three brain metastases who undergo resection, options for post-operative treatments include whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) or stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) of the resection cavity. In this meta-analysis, we sought to compare the efficacy of each post-operative radiation modality with respect to tumor recurrence and survival.

METHODS:

Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched through June 2016 for cohort studies reporting outcomes of SRS or WBRT after metastasis resection. Pooled effect estimates were calculated using fixed-effect and random-effect models for local recurrence, distant recurrence, and overall survival.

RESULTS:

Eight retrospective cohort studies with 646 patients (238 with SRS versus 408 with WBRT) were included in the analysis. Comparing SRS to WBRT, the overall crude risk ratio using the fixed-effect model was 0.59 for local recurrence (95%-CI: 0.32-1.09, I2: 3.35%, P-heterogeneity = 0.36, 3 studies), 1.09 for distant recurrence (95%-CI: 0.74-1.60, I2: 50.5%, P-heterogeneity = 0.13; 3 studies), and 2.99 for leptomeningeal disease (95% CI 1.55-5.76; I2: 14.4% p-heterogeneity: 0.28; 2 studies). For the same comparison, the risk ratio for median overall survival was 0.47 (95% CI: 0.41-0.54; I2: 79.1%, P-heterogeneity < 0.01; 4 studies) in a fixed-effect model, but was no longer significant (0.63; 95%-CI: 0.40-1.00) in a random-effect model. SRS was associated with a lower risk of leukoencephalopathy (RR: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.07-0.33, 1 study), yet with a higher risk of radiation-necrosis (RR: 19.4, 95% CI: 1.21-310, 1 study).

CONCLUSION:

Based on retrospective cohort studies, the results of this study suggest that SRS of the resection cavity may offer comparable survival and similar local and distant control as adjuvant WBRT, yet may be associated with a higher risk for developing leptomeningeal disease. Future research on SRS should focus on achieving a better understanding of the various factors that may favor SRS over WBRT.

KEYWORDS:

Brain Metastasis; Meta-analysis; Resection; Stereotactic radiosurgery; Whole brain radiation

PMID:
28646895
PMCID:
PMC5483276
DOI:
10.1186/s13014-017-0840-x
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for BioMed Central Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center