Cargando…
A multi-center analysis of single-fraction versus hypofractionated stereotactic radiosurgery for the treatment of brain metastasis
BACKGROUND: Hypofractionated-SRS (HF-SRS) may allow for improved local control and a reduced risk of radiation necrosis compared to single-fraction-SRS (SF-SRS). However, data comparing these two treatment approaches are limited. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between SF-...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7257186/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32466775 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-020-01522-6 |
_version_ | 1783540042403151872 |
---|---|
author | Remick, Jill S. Kowalski, Emily Khairnar, Rahul Sun, Kai Morse, Emily Cherng, Hua-Ren R. Poirier, Yannick Lamichhane, Narottam Becker, Stewart J. Chen, Shifeng Patel, Akshar N. Kwok, Young Nichols, Elizabeth Mohindra, Pranshu Woodworth, Graeme F. Regine, William F. Mishra, Mark V. |
author_facet | Remick, Jill S. Kowalski, Emily Khairnar, Rahul Sun, Kai Morse, Emily Cherng, Hua-Ren R. Poirier, Yannick Lamichhane, Narottam Becker, Stewart J. Chen, Shifeng Patel, Akshar N. Kwok, Young Nichols, Elizabeth Mohindra, Pranshu Woodworth, Graeme F. Regine, William F. Mishra, Mark V. |
author_sort | Remick, Jill S. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Hypofractionated-SRS (HF-SRS) may allow for improved local control and a reduced risk of radiation necrosis compared to single-fraction-SRS (SF-SRS). However, data comparing these two treatment approaches are limited. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between SF-SRS versus HF-SRS across our multi-center academic network. METHODS: Patients treated with SF-SRS or HF-SRS for brain metastasis from 2013 to 2018 across 5 radiation oncology centers were retrospectively reviewed. SF-SRS dosing was standardized, whereas HF-SRS dosing regimens were variable. The co-primary endpoints of local control and radiation necrosis were estimated using the Kaplan Meier method. Multivariate analysis using Cox proportional hazards modeling was performed to evaluate the impact of select independent variables on the outcomes of interest. Propensity score adjustments were used to reduce the effects confounding variables. To assess dose response for HF-SRS, Biologic Effective Dose (BED) assuming an α/β of 10 (BED(10)) was used as a surrogate for total dose. RESULTS: One-hundred and fifty six patients with 335 brain metastasis treated with SF-SRS (n = 222 lesions) or HF-SRS (n = 113 lesions) were included. Prior whole brain radiation was given in 33% (n = 74) and 34% (n = 38) of lesions treated with SF-SRS and HF-SRS, respectively (p = 0.30). After a median follow up time of 12 months in each cohort, the adjusted 1-year rate of local control and incidence of radiation necrosis was 91% (95% CI 86–96%) and 85% (95% CI 75–95%) (p = 0.26) and 10% (95% CI 5–15%) and 7% (95% CI 0.1–14%) (p = 0.73) for SF-SRS and HF-SRS, respectively. For lesions > 2 cm, the adjusted 1 year local control was 97% (95% CI 84–100%) for SF-SRS and 64% (95% CI 43–85%) for HF-SRS (p = 0.06). On multivariate analysis, SRS fractionation was not associated with local control and only size ≤2 cm was associated with a decreased risk of developing radiation necrosis (HR 0.21; 95% CI 0.07–0.58, p < 0.01). For HF-SRS, 1 year local control was 100% for lesions treated with a BED(10) ≥ 50 compared to 77% (95% CI 65–88%) for lesions that received a BED(10) < 50 (p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: In this comparison study of dose fractionation for the treatment of brain metastases, there was no difference in local control or radiation necrosis between HF-SRS and SF-SRS. For HF-SRS, a BED(10) ≥ 50 may improve local control. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7257186 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-72571862020-06-07 A multi-center analysis of single-fraction versus hypofractionated stereotactic radiosurgery for the treatment of brain metastasis Remick, Jill S. Kowalski, Emily Khairnar, Rahul Sun, Kai Morse, Emily Cherng, Hua-Ren R. Poirier, Yannick Lamichhane, Narottam Becker, Stewart J. Chen, Shifeng Patel, Akshar N. Kwok, Young Nichols, Elizabeth Mohindra, Pranshu Woodworth, Graeme F. Regine, William F. Mishra, Mark V. Radiat Oncol Research BACKGROUND: Hypofractionated-SRS (HF-SRS) may allow for improved local control and a reduced risk of radiation necrosis compared to single-fraction-SRS (SF-SRS). However, data comparing these two treatment approaches are limited. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between SF-SRS versus HF-SRS across our multi-center academic network. METHODS: Patients treated with SF-SRS or HF-SRS for brain metastasis from 2013 to 2018 across 5 radiation oncology centers were retrospectively reviewed. SF-SRS dosing was standardized, whereas HF-SRS dosing regimens were variable. The co-primary endpoints of local control and radiation necrosis were estimated using the Kaplan Meier method. Multivariate analysis using Cox proportional hazards modeling was performed to evaluate the impact of select independent variables on the outcomes of interest. Propensity score adjustments were used to reduce the effects confounding variables. To assess dose response for HF-SRS, Biologic Effective Dose (BED) assuming an α/β of 10 (BED(10)) was used as a surrogate for total dose. RESULTS: One-hundred and fifty six patients with 335 brain metastasis treated with SF-SRS (n = 222 lesions) or HF-SRS (n = 113 lesions) were included. Prior whole brain radiation was given in 33% (n = 74) and 34% (n = 38) of lesions treated with SF-SRS and HF-SRS, respectively (p = 0.30). After a median follow up time of 12 months in each cohort, the adjusted 1-year rate of local control and incidence of radiation necrosis was 91% (95% CI 86–96%) and 85% (95% CI 75–95%) (p = 0.26) and 10% (95% CI 5–15%) and 7% (95% CI 0.1–14%) (p = 0.73) for SF-SRS and HF-SRS, respectively. For lesions > 2 cm, the adjusted 1 year local control was 97% (95% CI 84–100%) for SF-SRS and 64% (95% CI 43–85%) for HF-SRS (p = 0.06). On multivariate analysis, SRS fractionation was not associated with local control and only size ≤2 cm was associated with a decreased risk of developing radiation necrosis (HR 0.21; 95% CI 0.07–0.58, p < 0.01). For HF-SRS, 1 year local control was 100% for lesions treated with a BED(10) ≥ 50 compared to 77% (95% CI 65–88%) for lesions that received a BED(10) < 50 (p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: In this comparison study of dose fractionation for the treatment of brain metastases, there was no difference in local control or radiation necrosis between HF-SRS and SF-SRS. For HF-SRS, a BED(10) ≥ 50 may improve local control. BioMed Central 2020-05-28 /pmc/articles/PMC7257186/ /pubmed/32466775 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-020-01522-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Remick, Jill S. Kowalski, Emily Khairnar, Rahul Sun, Kai Morse, Emily Cherng, Hua-Ren R. Poirier, Yannick Lamichhane, Narottam Becker, Stewart J. Chen, Shifeng Patel, Akshar N. Kwok, Young Nichols, Elizabeth Mohindra, Pranshu Woodworth, Graeme F. Regine, William F. Mishra, Mark V. A multi-center analysis of single-fraction versus hypofractionated stereotactic radiosurgery for the treatment of brain metastasis |
title | A multi-center analysis of single-fraction versus hypofractionated stereotactic radiosurgery for the treatment of brain metastasis |
title_full | A multi-center analysis of single-fraction versus hypofractionated stereotactic radiosurgery for the treatment of brain metastasis |
title_fullStr | A multi-center analysis of single-fraction versus hypofractionated stereotactic radiosurgery for the treatment of brain metastasis |
title_full_unstemmed | A multi-center analysis of single-fraction versus hypofractionated stereotactic radiosurgery for the treatment of brain metastasis |
title_short | A multi-center analysis of single-fraction versus hypofractionated stereotactic radiosurgery for the treatment of brain metastasis |
title_sort | multi-center analysis of single-fraction versus hypofractionated stereotactic radiosurgery for the treatment of brain metastasis |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7257186/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32466775 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-020-01522-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT remickjills amulticenteranalysisofsinglefractionversushypofractionatedstereotacticradiosurgeryforthetreatmentofbrainmetastasis AT kowalskiemily amulticenteranalysisofsinglefractionversushypofractionatedstereotacticradiosurgeryforthetreatmentofbrainmetastasis AT khairnarrahul amulticenteranalysisofsinglefractionversushypofractionatedstereotacticradiosurgeryforthetreatmentofbrainmetastasis AT sunkai amulticenteranalysisofsinglefractionversushypofractionatedstereotacticradiosurgeryforthetreatmentofbrainmetastasis AT morseemily amulticenteranalysisofsinglefractionversushypofractionatedstereotacticradiosurgeryforthetreatmentofbrainmetastasis AT chernghuarenr amulticenteranalysisofsinglefractionversushypofractionatedstereotacticradiosurgeryforthetreatmentofbrainmetastasis AT poirieryannick amulticenteranalysisofsinglefractionversushypofractionatedstereotacticradiosurgeryforthetreatmentofbrainmetastasis AT lamichhanenarottam amulticenteranalysisofsinglefractionversushypofractionatedstereotacticradiosurgeryforthetreatmentofbrainmetastasis AT beckerstewartj amulticenteranalysisofsinglefractionversushypofractionatedstereotacticradiosurgeryforthetreatmentofbrainmetastasis AT chenshifeng amulticenteranalysisofsinglefractionversushypofractionatedstereotacticradiosurgeryforthetreatmentofbrainmetastasis AT patelaksharn amulticenteranalysisofsinglefractionversushypofractionatedstereotacticradiosurgeryforthetreatmentofbrainmetastasis AT kwokyoung amulticenteranalysisofsinglefractionversushypofractionatedstereotacticradiosurgeryforthetreatmentofbrainmetastasis AT nicholselizabeth amulticenteranalysisofsinglefractionversushypofractionatedstereotacticradiosurgeryforthetreatmentofbrainmetastasis AT mohindrapranshu amulticenteranalysisofsinglefractionversushypofractionatedstereotacticradiosurgeryforthetreatmentofbrainmetastasis AT woodworthgraemef amulticenteranalysisofsinglefractionversushypofractionatedstereotacticradiosurgeryforthetreatmentofbrainmetastasis AT reginewilliamf amulticenteranalysisofsinglefractionversushypofractionatedstereotacticradiosurgeryforthetreatmentofbrainmetastasis AT mishramarkv amulticenteranalysisofsinglefractionversushypofractionatedstereotacticradiosurgeryforthetreatmentofbrainmetastasis AT remickjills multicenteranalysisofsinglefractionversushypofractionatedstereotacticradiosurgeryforthetreatmentofbrainmetastasis AT kowalskiemily multicenteranalysisofsinglefractionversushypofractionatedstereotacticradiosurgeryforthetreatmentofbrainmetastasis AT khairnarrahul multicenteranalysisofsinglefractionversushypofractionatedstereotacticradiosurgeryforthetreatmentofbrainmetastasis AT sunkai multicenteranalysisofsinglefractionversushypofractionatedstereotacticradiosurgeryforthetreatmentofbrainmetastasis AT morseemily multicenteranalysisofsinglefractionversushypofractionatedstereotacticradiosurgeryforthetreatmentofbrainmetastasis AT chernghuarenr multicenteranalysisofsinglefractionversushypofractionatedstereotacticradiosurgeryforthetreatmentofbrainmetastasis AT poirieryannick multicenteranalysisofsinglefractionversushypofractionatedstereotacticradiosurgeryforthetreatmentofbrainmetastasis AT lamichhanenarottam multicenteranalysisofsinglefractionversushypofractionatedstereotacticradiosurgeryforthetreatmentofbrainmetastasis AT beckerstewartj multicenteranalysisofsinglefractionversushypofractionatedstereotacticradiosurgeryforthetreatmentofbrainmetastasis AT chenshifeng multicenteranalysisofsinglefractionversushypofractionatedstereotacticradiosurgeryforthetreatmentofbrainmetastasis AT patelaksharn multicenteranalysisofsinglefractionversushypofractionatedstereotacticradiosurgeryforthetreatmentofbrainmetastasis AT kwokyoung multicenteranalysisofsinglefractionversushypofractionatedstereotacticradiosurgeryforthetreatmentofbrainmetastasis AT nicholselizabeth multicenteranalysisofsinglefractionversushypofractionatedstereotacticradiosurgeryforthetreatmentofbrainmetastasis AT mohindrapranshu multicenteranalysisofsinglefractionversushypofractionatedstereotacticradiosurgeryforthetreatmentofbrainmetastasis AT woodworthgraemef multicenteranalysisofsinglefractionversushypofractionatedstereotacticradiosurgeryforthetreatmentofbrainmetastasis AT reginewilliamf multicenteranalysisofsinglefractionversushypofractionatedstereotacticradiosurgeryforthetreatmentofbrainmetastasis AT mishramarkv multicenteranalysisofsinglefractionversushypofractionatedstereotacticradiosurgeryforthetreatmentofbrainmetastasis |