Single versus Multifraction Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Large Brain Metastases: An International Meta-analysis of 24 Trials

Multifraction (MF) stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) purportedly reduces radionecrosis risk over single-fraction (SF) SRS in the treatment of large brain metastases. The purpose of the current work is to compare local control (LC) and radionecrosis rates of SF-SRS and MF-SRS in the definitive (SF-SRSD...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics biology, physics, 2019-03, Vol.103 (3), p.618-630
Hauptverfasser: Lehrer, Eric J., Peterson, Jennifer L., Zaorsky, Nicholas G., Brown, Paul D., Sahgal, Arjun, Chiang, Veronica L., Chao, Samuel T., Sheehan, Jason P., Trifiletti, Daniel M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Multifraction (MF) stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) purportedly reduces radionecrosis risk over single-fraction (SF) SRS in the treatment of large brain metastases. The purpose of the current work is to compare local control (LC) and radionecrosis rates of SF-SRS and MF-SRS in the definitive (SF-SRSD and MF-SRSD) and postoperative (SF-SRSP and MF-SRSP) settings. Population, Intervention, Control, Outcomes, Study Design/Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines were used to select articles in which patients had “large” brain metastases (Group A: 4-14 cm3, or about 2-3 cm in diameter; Group B: >14 cm3, or about >3 cm in diameter); 1-year LC and/or rates of radionecrosis were reported; radiosurgery was administered definitively or postoperatively. Random effects meta-analyses using fractionation scheme and size as covariates were conducted. Meta-regression and Wald-type tests were used to determine the effect of increasing tumor size and fractionation on the summary estimate, where the null hypothesis was rejected for P 
ISSN:0360-3016
1879-355X
DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.10.038