Efficacy and safety of CyberKnife radiosurgery in elderly patients with brain metastases: a retrospective clinical evaluation.
Brain metastases
CyberKnife
Elderly patients
Stereotactic radiosurgery
Journal
Radiation oncology (London, England)
ISSN: 1748-717X
Titre abrégé: Radiat Oncol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101265111
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Sep 2020
29 Sep 2020
Historique:
received:
01
05
2020
accepted:
31
08
2020
entrez:
30
9
2020
pubmed:
1
10
2020
medline:
14
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has been increasingly applied for up to 10 brain metastases instead of whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) to achieve local tumor control while reducing neurotoxicity. Furthermore, brain-metastasis incidence is rising due to the increasing survival of patients with cancer. Our aim was to analyze the efficacy and safety of CyberKnife (CK) radiosurgery for elderly patients. We retrospectively identified all patients with brain metastases ≥ 65 years old treated with CK-SRS at our institution since 2011 and analyzed data of primary diseases, multimodality treatments, and local therapy effect based on imaging follow-up and treatment safety. Kaplan-Meier analysis for local progression-free interval and overall survival were performed. We identified 97 patients (233 lesions) fulfilling the criteria at the first CK-SRS. The mean age was 73.2 ± 5.8 (range: 65.0-87.0) years. Overall, 13.4% of the patients were > 80 years old. The three most frequent primary cancers were lung (40.2%), kidney (22.7%), and malignant melanoma (15.5%). In 38.5% (47/122 treatments) multiple brain metastases were treated with the CK-SRS, with up to eight lesions in one session. The median planning target volume (PTV) was 1.05 (range: 0.01-19.80) cm SRS is a safe and efficient option for the treatment of elderly patients with brain metastases with good local control rates without the side effects of WBRT. Older age and female sex seem to be predictive factors of local progression. Prospective studies are warranted to clarify the role of SRS treatment for elderly patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has been increasingly applied for up to 10 brain metastases instead of whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) to achieve local tumor control while reducing neurotoxicity. Furthermore, brain-metastasis incidence is rising due to the increasing survival of patients with cancer. Our aim was to analyze the efficacy and safety of CyberKnife (CK) radiosurgery for elderly patients.
METHODS
METHODS
We retrospectively identified all patients with brain metastases ≥ 65 years old treated with CK-SRS at our institution since 2011 and analyzed data of primary diseases, multimodality treatments, and local therapy effect based on imaging follow-up and treatment safety. Kaplan-Meier analysis for local progression-free interval and overall survival were performed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We identified 97 patients (233 lesions) fulfilling the criteria at the first CK-SRS. The mean age was 73.2 ± 5.8 (range: 65.0-87.0) years. Overall, 13.4% of the patients were > 80 years old. The three most frequent primary cancers were lung (40.2%), kidney (22.7%), and malignant melanoma (15.5%). In 38.5% (47/122 treatments) multiple brain metastases were treated with the CK-SRS, with up to eight lesions in one session. The median planning target volume (PTV) was 1.05 (range: 0.01-19.80) cm
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
SRS is a safe and efficient option for the treatment of elderly patients with brain metastases with good local control rates without the side effects of WBRT. Older age and female sex seem to be predictive factors of local progression. Prospective studies are warranted to clarify the role of SRS treatment for elderly patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32993672
doi: 10.1186/s13014-020-01655-8
pii: 10.1186/s13014-020-01655-8
pmc: PMC7523070
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
225Références
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2019 Jan;133:163-170
pubmed: 30661652
Support Care Cancer. 2016 Aug;24(8):3669-76
pubmed: 27260018
J Neurooncol. 2018 May;138(1):73-81
pubmed: 29376195
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997 Mar 1;37(4):745-51
pubmed: 9128946
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Sep 1;99(1):31-40
pubmed: 28816158
J Clin Oncol. 1994 Mar;12(3):627-42
pubmed: 8120563
Cancer. 2008 Aug 15;113(4):834-40
pubmed: 18536026
J Neurooncol. 2013 Feb;111(3):319-25
pubmed: 23187817
J Radiat Oncol. 2017;6(1):31-37
pubmed: 28367276
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Jul 15;98(4):939-947
pubmed: 28602418
Prog Neurol Surg. 2019;34:100-109
pubmed: 31096242
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Dec 1;99(5):1173-1178
pubmed: 28939223
Semin Oncol. 2004 Apr;31(2):128-36
pubmed: 15112144
BMC Cancer. 2015 Feb 14;15:54
pubmed: 25885321
JAMA. 2016 Jul 26;316(4):401-409
pubmed: 27458945
J Neurosurg. 2014 Nov;121(5):1148-57
pubmed: 25061863
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Feb 1;70(2):510-4
pubmed: 17931798
Strahlenther Onkol. 2019 Mar;195(3):218-225
pubmed: 30478669
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Apr;15(4):387-95
pubmed: 24621620
Neurology. 1989 Jun;39(6):789-96
pubmed: 2725874
World Neurosurg. 2019 Mar;123:e621-e628
pubmed: 30553069
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Oct 20;33(30):3475-84
pubmed: 26282648
Lancet Oncol. 2015 Jun;16(6):e270-8
pubmed: 26065612
Lancet. 2016 Oct 22;388(10055):2004-2014
pubmed: 27604504
Med Phys. 2010 Aug;37(8):4078-101
pubmed: 20879569
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 Sep 1;63(1):37-46
pubmed: 16111570
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000 Mar 15;46(5):1155-61
pubmed: 10725626
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 Dec 1;63(5):1555-61
pubmed: 16024180