Stereotactic Radiosurgery With Versus Without Neoadjuvant Endovascular Embolization for Brain Arteriovenous Malformations With Associated Intracranial Aneurysms.
Journal
Neurosurgery
ISSN: 1524-4040
Titre abrégé: Neurosurgery
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7802914
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 Aug 2024
22 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
29
04
2024
accepted:
13
07
2024
medline:
22
8
2024
pubmed:
22
8
2024
entrez:
22
8
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) with neoadjuvant embolization is a treatment strategy for brain arteriovenous malformations (AVMs), especially for those with large nidal volume or concomitant aneurysms. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of pre-SRS embolization in AVMs with an associated intracranial aneurysm (IA). The International Radiosurgery Research Foundation AVM database from 1987 to 2018 was retrospectively reviewed. SRS-treated AVMs with IAs were included. Patients were categorized into those treated with upfront embolization (E + SRS) vs stand-alone SRS (SRS). Primary end point was a favorable outcome (AVM obliteration + no permanent radiation-induced changes or post-SRS hemorrhage). Secondary outcomes included AVM obliteration, mortality, follow-up modified Rankin Scale, post-SRS hemorrhage, and radiation-induced changes. Forty four AVM patients with associated IAs were included, of which 23 (52.3%) underwent pre-SRS embolization and 21 (47.7%) SRS only. Significant differences between the E + SRS vs SRS groups were found for AVM maximum diameter (1.5 ± 0.5 vs 1.1 ± 0.4 cm3, P = .019) and SRS treatment volume (9.3 ± 8.3 vs 4.3 ± 3.3 cm3, P = .025). A favorable outcome was achieved in 45.4% of patients in the E + SRS group and 38.1% in the SRS group (P = .625). Obliteration rates were comparable (56.5% for E + SRS vs 47.6% for SRS, P = .555), whereas a higher mortality rate was found in the SRS group (19.1% vs 0%, P = .048). After adjusting for AVM maximum diameter, SRS treatment volume, and maximum radiation dose, the likelihood of achieving favorable outcome and AVM obliteration did not differ between groups (P = .475 and P = .820, respectively). The likelihood of a favorable outcome and AVM obliteration after SRS with neoadjuvant embolization in AVMs with concomitant IA seems to be comparable with stand-alone SRS, even after adjusting for AVM volume and SRS maximum dose. However, the increased mortality among the stand-alone SRS group and relatively low risk of embolization-related complications suggest that these patients may benefit from a combined treatment approach.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) with neoadjuvant embolization is a treatment strategy for brain arteriovenous malformations (AVMs), especially for those with large nidal volume or concomitant aneurysms. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of pre-SRS embolization in AVMs with an associated intracranial aneurysm (IA).
METHODS
METHODS
The International Radiosurgery Research Foundation AVM database from 1987 to 2018 was retrospectively reviewed. SRS-treated AVMs with IAs were included. Patients were categorized into those treated with upfront embolization (E + SRS) vs stand-alone SRS (SRS). Primary end point was a favorable outcome (AVM obliteration + no permanent radiation-induced changes or post-SRS hemorrhage). Secondary outcomes included AVM obliteration, mortality, follow-up modified Rankin Scale, post-SRS hemorrhage, and radiation-induced changes.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Forty four AVM patients with associated IAs were included, of which 23 (52.3%) underwent pre-SRS embolization and 21 (47.7%) SRS only. Significant differences between the E + SRS vs SRS groups were found for AVM maximum diameter (1.5 ± 0.5 vs 1.1 ± 0.4 cm3, P = .019) and SRS treatment volume (9.3 ± 8.3 vs 4.3 ± 3.3 cm3, P = .025). A favorable outcome was achieved in 45.4% of patients in the E + SRS group and 38.1% in the SRS group (P = .625). Obliteration rates were comparable (56.5% for E + SRS vs 47.6% for SRS, P = .555), whereas a higher mortality rate was found in the SRS group (19.1% vs 0%, P = .048). After adjusting for AVM maximum diameter, SRS treatment volume, and maximum radiation dose, the likelihood of achieving favorable outcome and AVM obliteration did not differ between groups (P = .475 and P = .820, respectively).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The likelihood of a favorable outcome and AVM obliteration after SRS with neoadjuvant embolization in AVMs with concomitant IA seems to be comparable with stand-alone SRS, even after adjusting for AVM volume and SRS maximum dose. However, the increased mortality among the stand-alone SRS group and relatively low risk of embolization-related complications suggest that these patients may benefit from a combined treatment approach.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39171929
doi: 10.1227/neu.0000000000003152
pii: 00006123-990000000-01315
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2024. All rights reserved.
Références
Laakso A, Hernesniemi J. Arteriovenous malformations: epidemiology and clinical presentation. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2012;23(1):1-6.
Flores BC, Klinger DR, Rickert KL, et al. Management of intracranial aneurysms associated with arteriovenous malformations. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;37(3):e11.
Rammos SK, Gardenghi B, Bortolotti C, Cloft HJ, Lanzino G. Aneurysms associated with brain arteriovenous malformations. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016;37(11):1966-1971.
Mohr JP, Parides MK, Stapf C, et al. Medical management with or without interventional therapy for unruptured brain arteriovenous malformations (ARUBA): a multicentre, non-blinded, randomised trial. Lancet (London, England). 2014;383(9917):614-621.
Karlsson B, Jokura H, Yang HC, et al. Clinical outcome following cerebral AVM hemorrhage. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2020;162(7):1759-1766.
Kato Y, Dong V, Chaddad F, et al. Expert consensus on the management of brain arteriovenous malformations. Asian J Neurosurg. 2019;14(4):1074-1081.
Derdeyn CP, Zipfel GJ, Albuquerque FC, et al. Management of brain arteriovenous malformations: a scientific statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2017;48(8):e200-e224.
Ding D, Yen CP, Starke RM, Xu Z, Sheehan JP. Radiosurgery for ruptured intracranial arteriovenous malformations: clinical article. J Neurosurg. 2014;121(2):470-481.
Yan D, Chen Y, Li Z, et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery with vs. without prior embolization for brain arteriovenous malformations: a propensity score matching analysis. Front Neurol. 2021;12:752164.
Redekop G, TerBrugge K, Montanera W, Willinsky R. Arterial aneurysms associated with cerebral arteriovenous malformations: classification, incidence, and risk of hemorrhage. J Neurosurg. 1998;89(4):539-546.
Wegner RE, Oysul K, Pollock BE, et al. A modified radiosurgery-based arteriovenous malformation grading scale and its correlation with outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;79(4):1147-1150.
Starke RM, Yen CP, Ding D, Sheehan JP. A practical grading scale for predicting outcome after radiosurgery for arteriovenous malformations: analysis of 1012 treated patients. J Neurosurg. 2013;119(4):981-987.
Kothari RU, Brott T, Broderick JP, et al. The ABCs of measuring intracerebral hemorrhage volumes. Stroke. 1996;27(8):1304-1305.
Spetzler RF, Martin NA. A proposed grading system for arteriovenous malformations. J Neurosurg. 1986;65(4):476-483.
Steiner L, Lindquist C, Adler JR, Torner JC, Alves W, Steiner M. Clinical outcome of radiosurgery for cerebral arteriovenous malformations. J Neurosurg. 1992;77(1):1-8.
Yen CP, Matsumoto JA, Wintermark M, et al. Radiation-induced imaging changes following Gamma Knife surgery for cerebral arteriovenous malformations: clinical article. J Neurosurg. 2013;118(1):63-73.
Ding D, Yen CPO, Xu Z, Starke RM, Sheehan JP. Radiosurgery for low-grade intracranial arteriovenous malformations. J Neurosurg. 2014;121(2):457-467.
Byun J, Kwon DH, Lee DH, Park W, Park JC, Ahn JS. Radiosurgery for cerebral arteriovenous malformation (AVM): current treatment strategy and radiosurgical technique for large cerebral AVM. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2020;63(4):415-426.
Jiang Z, Zhang X, Wan X, et al. Efficacy and safety of combined endovascular embolization and stereotactic radiosurgery for patients with intracranial arteriovenous malformations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Biomed Res Int. 2021;2021:6686167.
Plasencia A, Santillan A. Embolization and radiosurgery for arteriovenous malformations. Surg Neurol Int. 2012;3(Suppl 2):S90-S104.
Ding D, Chen CJ, Starke RM, et al. Risk of brain arteriovenous malformation hemorrhage before and after stereotactic radiosurgery: a multicenter study. Stroke. 2019;50(6):1384-1391.
Kano H, Kondziolka D, Flickinger JC, et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery after embolization for arteriovenous malformations. Prog Neurol Surg. 2013;27:89-96.
Haw CS, Terbrugge K, Willinsky R, Tomlinson G. Complications of embolization of arteriovenous malformations of the brain. J Neurosurg. 2006;104(2):226-232.
Spetzler RF, Ponce FA. A 3-tier classification of cerebral arteriovenous malformations. Clinical article. J Neurosurg. 2011;114(3):842-849.