Gamma Knife Surgery versus Linac for Brain Metastasis: Which Technique for Which Patient? Analysis of an Historical Cohort of 63 Consecutive Patients Harboring 130 Lesions

Détails

ID Serval
serval:BIB_C7DD8550D443
Type
Actes de conférence (partie): contribution originale à la littérature scientifique, publiée à l'occasion de conférences scientifiques, dans un ouvrage de compte-rendu (proceedings), ou dans l'édition spéciale d'un journal reconnu (conference proceedings).
Sous-type
Abstract (résumé de présentation): article court qui reprend les éléments essentiels présentés à l'occasion d'une conférence scientifique dans un poster ou lors d'une intervention orale.
Collection
Publications
Titre
Gamma Knife Surgery versus Linac for Brain Metastasis: Which Technique for Which Patient? Analysis of an Historical Cohort of 63 Consecutive Patients Harboring 130 Lesions
Titre de la conférence
journal of Neurological Surgery Part A: Central European Neurosurgery
Auteur(s)
Levivier M., Tuleasca C., Schiappacasse L., Gevaert T., Faouzi M., Von Elm E., Steenbecke F., Engels B., de Ridder M., Bourhis J.
Organisation
Joint Annual Meeting 2015: Swiss Society of Neurosurgery and Swiss Society of Neuroradiology Together with IG-NOPPS, Lucerne, Switzerland, 10-11 September 2015
ISBN
2193-6315 (Print)
2193-6323 (Electronic)
Statut éditorial
Publié
Date de publication
2015
Volume
76
Pages
1-2
Langue
anglais
Résumé
Objectives: We present the retrospective analysis of a single-institution experience for radiosurgery (RS) in brain metastasis (BM) with Gamma Knife (GK) and Linac. Methods: From July 2010 to July 2012, 28 patients (with 83 lesions) had RS with GK and 35 patients (with 47 lesions) with Linac. The primary outcome was the local progression-free survival (LPFS). The secondary outcome was the overall survival (OS). Apart a standard statistical analysis, we included a Cox regression model with shared frailty, to modulate the within-patient correlation (preliminary evaluation showed a significant frailty effect, meaning that the correlation within patient could be ignored). Results: The mean follow-up period was 11.7 months (median 7.9, 1.7-22.7) for GK and 18.1 (median 17, 7.5-28.7) for Linac. The median number of lesions per patient was 2.5 (1-9) in GK compared with 1 (1-3) in Linac. There were more radioresistant lesions (melanoma) and more lesions located in functional areas for the GK group. The median dose was 24 Gy (GK) compared with 20 Gy (Linac). The LPFS actuarial rate was as follows: for GK at 3, 6, 9, 12, and 17 months: 96.96, 96.96, 96.96, 88.1, and 81.5%, and remained stable till 32 months; for Linac at 3, 6, 12, 17, 24, and 33 months, it was 91.5, 91.5, 91.5, 79.9, 55.5, and 17.1%, respectively (p = 0.03, chi-square test). After the Cox regression analysis with shared frailty, the p-value was not statistically significant between groups. The median overall survival was 9.7 months for GK and 23.6 months for Linac group. Uni- and multivariate analysis showed a lower GPA score and noncontrolled systemic status were associated with lower OS. Cox regression analysis adjusting for these two parameters showed comparable OS rate. Conclusions: In this comparative report between GK and Linac, preliminary analysis showed that more difficult cases are treated by GK, with patients harboring more lesions, radioresistant tumors, and highly functional located. The groups look, in this sense, very heterogeneous at baseline. After a Cox frailty model, the LPFS rates seemed very similar (p < 0.05). The OS was similar, after adjusting for systemic status and GPA score (p < 0.05). The technical reasons for choosing GK instead of Linac were the anatomical location related to highly functional areas, histology, technical limitations of Linac movements, especially lower posterior fossa locations, or closeness of multiple lesions to highly functional areas optimal dosimetry with Linac
Création de la notice
20/10/2015 9:44
Dernière modification de la notice
03/03/2018 21:20
Données d'usage