Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:12:51.686Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Radiosurgery for Arteriovenous Malformations: the University of Toronto Experience

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2015

C. Young ,
R. Summerfield ,
M. Schwartz ,
P. O'Brien  and
R. Ramani
C. Young*
Affiliation:
Toronto-Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Science Centre, University of Toronto Brain Vascular Malformation Study Group
R. Summerfield
Affiliation:
Toronto-Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Science Centre, University of Toronto Brain Vascular Malformation Study Group
M. Schwartz
Affiliation:
Toronto-Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Science Centre, University of Toronto Brain Vascular Malformation Study Group
P. O'Brien
Affiliation:
Toronto-Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Science Centre, University of Toronto Brain Vascular Malformation Study Group
R. Ramani
Affiliation:
Toronto-Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Science Centre, University of Toronto Brain Vascular Malformation Study Group
*
Toronto-Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Centre, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4N 3M5
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Background:

From July 1989 to February 1996, 130 patients underwent sterotactic radiosurgery. We report the results of the first 50 patients eligible for a minimum of three years of follow-up.

Methods:

Twenty women and 30 men, (mean age: 37.5 years) were treated by dynamic rotation on a 6 MV linear accelerator. Prior treatment was embolization in seventeen, surgery in three and embolization and surgery in six. All had DSA and enhanced CT scanning, while some had MRI. Forty-seven treatments used a single isodose. Restricting eloquent normal tissue to 15 Gy, margin doses (at 50 - 90% isodose) were 12 Gy (one patient); 15 Gy (sixteen patients); 20 Gy (31 patients); 25 Gy (two patients). Maximum diameters were: <1.5 cm (12 patients); < 2.0 cm (nine patients); < 2.5 cm (twelve patients); < 3.0 cm (thirteen patients; 3.0 cm (four patients).

Results:

Forty-five patients were evaluable at three years, with thirty-nine having angiography. Twenty-five had angiographically confirmed obliterations; two had parenchymal AVMs obliterated but with residual dural components; four had MRI evidence of obliteration (refused angiography). One patient acutely had a seizure; one patient (with hemorrhages, resection, and embolizations preceding two applications of radiosurgery, separated by 3.5 years) had worsening of memory.

Conclusions:

Our uncorrected (five patients unevaluable at three years) and corrected angiographically confirmed obliteration rates are 54% and 60% respectively. Our follow-up (98% accounting of cohort; 78% angiographic rate) and explicit derivation of denominators help delineate the efficacy of radiosurgery at these doses.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , May 1997 , pp. 99 - 105
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Neurological Sciences Federation 1997

References

REFERENCES

1.Ondra, SLTroupp, HGeorge, EDSchwab, KThe natural history of symptomatic arteriovenous malformations of the brain: a 24-year follow-up assessment. J Neurosurg 1990; 73: 387–391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Cushing, HBailey, PTumors arising from the blood vessels of the brain. Charles C Thomas. Baltimore, 1928.Google Scholar
3.Nilsson, AWennerstrand, JLeksell, DBacklund, EOStereotactic gamma irradiation of basilar artery in cat. Acta Radiol Oncol 1978; 17: 150–160.Google ScholarPubMed
4.Nielson, SLKjellberg, RNAsbury, AKKoehler, AMNeuropathologic effects of proton-beam irradiation in man. Acta Neuropathol (Berl) 1972; 21: 76–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Ogilvy, CSRadiation therapy for arteriovenous malformations. A review. Neurosurgery 1990; 26 (5): 725–735.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.McKenzie, MRSouhami, LPodgorsak, EBet al. Photon radio-surgery: a clinical review. Can J Neurol Sci 1992; 19: 212–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Gentili, FSchwartz, MTerBrugge, Ket al. A multidisciplinary approach to the treatment of brain vascular malformations. In: Symon, LCalliauw, Let al., eds. Advances and Technical Standards in Neurosurgery. Vol 19, Wien: Springer-Verlag, 1992; 179–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Spetzler, RFMartin, NAA proposed grading system for arteriovenous malformations. J Neurosurg 1986; 65: 476–483.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Olivier, ABertrand, GStereotactic device for percutaneous twistdrill insertion of depth electrodes and for brain biopsy. J Neurosurg 1982; 56: 307–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Podgorsak, EBOlivier, APla, MLefebvre, P-YHazel, J.Dynamic stereotactic radiosurgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1988; 14: 115–126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.O’Brien, PFSchwartz, MYoung, CDavey, PRadiosurgery with unflattened 6-MV photon beams. Med Phys 1991; 18 (3): 519–521.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Gillies, BAO’Brien, PFMcVittie, RMcParland, CEaston, HEngineering modifications for dynamic stereotactically assisted radiotherapy. Med Phys 1993; 20 (5): 1491–1495.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Tugwell, PXHow to read clinical journals: III. To learn the clinical course of prognosis of disease. CMA Journal 1981; 124: 869–872.Google Scholar
14.Gaspar, L (Letter) Radiosurgery for AVMs: Evaluating the risks and benefits. J Neurosurg 1995; 83: 381.Google ScholarPubMed
15.Heffez, DSOsterdock, RAlderete, LGrutsch, JHelenowski, TThe published results of AVM radiosurgery are statistically biased. Read at The 64th Annual Meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, Minneapolis, Minnesota 1996; Scientific Program p 322.Google Scholar
16.Mehta, MPThe physical, biologic, and clinical basis of radiosurgery. In: Ozols, RFEisenberg, BKinsella, TJ eds. Current Problems in Cancer. St. Louis: Mosby-Year Book, Inc, 1995: 9; 5.Google Scholar
17.Pollock, BEKondziolka, DLunsford, LDBissonette, DFlickinger, JCRepeat stereotactic radiosurgery of arteriovenous malformations: factors associated with incomplete obliteration. Neurosurgery 1996; 38 (2): 318–324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Friedman, WABova, FJMendenhall, WMLinear accelerator radiosurgery for arteriovenous malformations: the relationship of size to outcome. J Neurosurg 1995; 82: 180–189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Colombo, FPozza, FChierego, Get al. Linear accelerator radiosurgery of cerebral arteriovenous malformations: an update. Neurosurgery 1994; 34 (1): 14–21.Google ScholarPubMed
20.Engenhart, RWowra, BDebus, Jet al. The role of high-dose single-fraction irradiation in small and large intracranial arteriovenous malformations. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1994; 30 (3): 521–529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Guo, WYKarlsson, BEricson, KLindqvist, MEven the smallest remnant of an AVM constitutes a risk of further bleeding. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1993: 121: 212–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Lunsford, LDKondziolka, DFlickinger, JCet al. Stereotactic radiosurgery for arteriovenous malformations of the brain. J Neurosurg 1991; 75: 512–524.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Coffey, RJLunsford, LDBissonette, DFlickinger, JCStereotactic gamma radiosurgery for intracranial vascular malformations and tumors: report of the initial North American experience in 331 patients. In: Proceedings of the Xth Meeting of the World Society for Stereotactic and Function Neurosurgery, Maebashi, Japan. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 1990; 54+55: 535–540.Google Scholar
24.Sebag-Montefiore, DJDoughty, DBiggs, DPlowman, PNStereotactic multiple arc radiotherapy. I. Vascular malformations of the brain: an analysis of the first 108 patients. Br J Neurosurg 1995; 9: 441–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar