Operative neurosurgery (Hagerstown, Md.) · 2025
Stereotactic Radiosurgery and Surgical Resection for Jugular Foramen Schwannomas: A Retrospective Comparative Study of Outcomes.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Akhavan-Sigari Amirhossein, Park David J, Kattaa Ahed H, Hori Yusuke S, Persad Amit R L, AbuReesh Deyaaldeen, Lam Fred C, Emrich Sara C, Ustrzynski Louisa, Tayag Armine, Chang Steven D
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Jugular foramen schwannomas (JFS) are rare benign tumors arising from lower cranial nerves. In this study, we aim to compare the outcomes of surgical resection (SR) and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) in the treatment of JFS.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 31 patients with JFS who underwent SRS (13 patients [41.9%]) or surgical resection (18 patients [58.1%]) as their primary management modality over a two-decade period. Outcomes included progression-free survival, post-treatment adverse events based on Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, symptom improvement, overall survival, and the necessity for secondary interventions. Local tumor control was also evaluated in all patients who received SRS.
RESULTS: Significant differences were observed in baseline characteristics between the SRS and SR groups, including median age (58 vs 48 years, P = .001), largest tumor diameter (32.0 vs 47.5 mm, P = .02), and total tumor volume (6.50 vs 20.5 mm 3 , P = .01). There were no significant differences in sex or lesion morphology (dumbbell vs nondumbbell shaped). After adjusting for baseline characteristics, no significant differences were noted in progression-free survival (90.9 vs 86.2%), overall survival (92.3 vs 100%), symptom improvement (61.5 vs 55.5%), or median Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade (1 in both groups) between the SRS and SR groups, respectively. SRS patients had significantly lower odds of requiring secondary treatment procedures after their primary intervention as compared with those who underwent SR (odds ratio = 0.02, 95% CI: 0.001-0.88, P -value = .04). Local tumor control in all SRS patients (19 patients) was 93.7% and 79.1% at six-month and five-year time points, respectively.
CONCLUSION: SRS and SR demonstrate comparable effectiveness in treating JFS. However, SRS may be a more favorable option because of a reduced need for secondary interventions. Future controlled prospective studies are needed to draw more definitive conclusions.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 31 patients with JFS who underwent SRS (13 patients [41.9%]) or surgical resection (18 patients [58.1%]) as their primary management modality over a two-decade period. Outcomes included progression-free survival, post-treatment adverse events based on Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, symptom improvement, overall survival, and the necessity for secondary interventions. Local tumor control was also evaluated in all patients who received SRS.
RESULTS: Significant differences were observed in baseline characteristics between the SRS and SR groups, including median age (58 vs 48 years, P = .001), largest tumor diameter (32.0 vs 47.5 mm, P = .02), and total tumor volume (6.50 vs 20.5 mm 3 , P = .01). There were no significant differences in sex or lesion morphology (dumbbell vs nondumbbell shaped). After adjusting for baseline characteristics, no significant differences were noted in progression-free survival (90.9 vs 86.2%), overall survival (92.3 vs 100%), symptom improvement (61.5 vs 55.5%), or median Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade (1 in both groups) between the SRS and SR groups, respectively. SRS patients had significantly lower odds of requiring secondary treatment procedures after their primary intervention as compared with those who underwent SR (odds ratio = 0.02, 95% CI: 0.001-0.88, P -value = .04). Local tumor control in all SRS patients (19 patients) was 93.7% and 79.1% at six-month and five-year time points, respectively.
CONCLUSION: SRS and SR demonstrate comparable effectiveness in treating JFS. However, SRS may be a more favorable option because of a reduced need for secondary interventions. Future controlled prospective studies are needed to draw more definitive conclusions.