Practical radiation oncology · 2016
Radiotherapeutic management of vestibular schwannomas using size- and location-adapted fractionation regimens to maximize the therapeutic ratio.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Slane Benjamin G, Goyal Uma, Grow Joel L, Morrison Christopher, Hullett Craig R, Gordon John, Sanan Abhay, Stea Baldassarre
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We evaluated and compared the radiographic and clinical outcomes of patients with vestibular schwannomas treated with single fraction stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), 5 fractions of hypofractionated stereotactic radiation therapy (hSRT), or 25 to 30 fractions of conventionally fractionated stereotactic radiation therapy (cfSRT).
METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fifty-six patients treated with LINAC-based SRS (median, 12.5 Gy), hSRT (25 Gy), or cfSRT (median, 54 Gy) were retrospectively reviewed. Fractionation was based on the size of the tumor, proximity to the brainstem, and potential risk of neurological sequelae. Median follow-up time was 55.2 months.
RESULTS: The pretreatment median tumor diameter was significantly smaller for SRS (1.14 cm) compared with hSRT (1.7 cm) (P = .03) and cfSRT (2.0 cm) (P < .001). The overall local tumor control was 96.4%: 100% SRS, 100% hSRT, and 90% cfSRT (P = .19). Tumor regression was observed in 53.3% of SRS, 76.2% of hSRT, and 90% of cfSRT (P = .05). There was less transient expansion of tumors treated with cfSRT (5%) than with SRS (53.3%) or hSRT (28.6%) (P = .005). The median time to regression was 13.8 months for SRS, 14.2 months for hSRT, and 5.5 months for cfSRT (P = .34). There was a 3.6% incidence of grade 3 trigeminal neuropathy, but there was no grade 3 facial neuropathy.
CONCLUSIONS: All 3 regimens demonstrated similar excellent local control with minimal toxicity; however, the ability of hSRT to treat larger tumors with comparable outcomes to SRS and greater patient convenience when compared with cfSRT suggest that hSRT may offer the optimal treatment approach.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fifty-six patients treated with LINAC-based SRS (median, 12.5 Gy), hSRT (25 Gy), or cfSRT (median, 54 Gy) were retrospectively reviewed. Fractionation was based on the size of the tumor, proximity to the brainstem, and potential risk of neurological sequelae. Median follow-up time was 55.2 months.
RESULTS: The pretreatment median tumor diameter was significantly smaller for SRS (1.14 cm) compared with hSRT (1.7 cm) (P = .03) and cfSRT (2.0 cm) (P < .001). The overall local tumor control was 96.4%: 100% SRS, 100% hSRT, and 90% cfSRT (P = .19). Tumor regression was observed in 53.3% of SRS, 76.2% of hSRT, and 90% of cfSRT (P = .05). There was less transient expansion of tumors treated with cfSRT (5%) than with SRS (53.3%) or hSRT (28.6%) (P = .005). The median time to regression was 13.8 months for SRS, 14.2 months for hSRT, and 5.5 months for cfSRT (P = .34). There was a 3.6% incidence of grade 3 trigeminal neuropathy, but there was no grade 3 facial neuropathy.
CONCLUSIONS: All 3 regimens demonstrated similar excellent local control with minimal toxicity; however, the ability of hSRT to treat larger tumors with comparable outcomes to SRS and greater patient convenience when compared with cfSRT suggest that hSRT may offer the optimal treatment approach.