Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:05:24.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Stereotactic radiosurgery in brain metastasis: treatment outcomes and patterns of failure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2023

Menekse Turna*
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Anadolu Medical Center, Gebze, Kocaeli, Turkey
Rashad Rzazade
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Anadolu Medical Center, Gebze, Kocaeli, Turkey
Esra Küçükmorkoç
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Anadolu Medical Center, Gebze, Kocaeli, Turkey
Mehmet Doğu Canoğlu
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Anadolu Medical Center, Gebze, Kocaeli, Turkey
Nadir Küçük
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Anadolu Medical Center, Gebze, Kocaeli, Turkey
Hale Başak Çağlar
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Anadolu Medical Center, Gebze, Kocaeli, Turkey
*
Author for correspondence: Menekse Turna, Department of Radiation Oncology, Anadolu Medical Center, Gebze, Kocaeli, Turkey. E-mail: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has become a preferred treatment in the initial management of brain metastases (BM). This study reported treatment outcomes and identified the patient, tumour, and treatment-related factors that predict failure, survival, and brain necrosis (BN).

Methods:

We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records of all BM patients treated with SRS. Patient, tumour characteristics and treatment details data were collected. All recurrences and BN were defined in the neurooncological tumour board.

Results:

From December 2016 to April 2020, 148 patients were analysed. The median follow-up was 14·8 months (range 6–51). At the time of analyses, 72·3% of the patients were alive. Presence of initial neurological deficit (HR; 2·71 (1·07–6·9); p = 0·036) and prior RT (HR; 2·55 (1·28–5·09); p = 0·008) is associated with worse overall survival. The local recurrence rate was 11·5 %. The distant brain metastasis rate was 53·4 %. Leptomeningeal metastasis was seen in 11 patients (7·4%). Symptomatic BN was seen in 19 patients (12·8 %). Bigger lesions (13 versus 23 mm diameter; p = 0·034) and cavity radiosurgery are associated with more BN (63·2 % versus 36·8%; p: 0·004).

Conclusions:

Distant BM is the leading cause of CNS recurrences and, salvage SRS is possible. Due to the increasing risk of developing BN routine metastasectomy should be made with caution.

Type
Original Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

Brain metastases (BM) are the most common intracranial malignancy in adult patients with systematic cancer and a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Reference Tsao, Rades and Wirth1,Reference McDuff, Taich and Lawson2 With increasing incidence, BM occur in 20–40 % of patients suffering from primary solid extracerebral tumours. Reference Linskey, Andrews and Asher3 Management options depend on patients and tumour characteristics such as performance status, neurological deficits, tumour size, life expectancy and extracranial disease activity.

Radiotherapy is almost always the most common treatment of brain metastasis. In recent years, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has become a preferred treatment option in the initial management of patients with limited BM. 4 Randomised trials have demonstrated that SRS provides equivalent survival and better neurocognitive function (NCF) compared to whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) in both initial management (stand-alone) and postoperative adjuvant setting. Reference Andrews, Scott and Sperduto5Reference Chang, Wefel and Hess7

In this single-institution retrospective study, we investigated local control (LC), distant brain metastasis (DBM), leptomeningeal control, overall survival (OS) and radiation necrosis rate in patients undergoing SRS for BM. We also aimed to identify the patient, tumour, and treatment-related factors that predict failure, survival, and brain necrosis (BN) after SRS in patients with BM.

Methods

We conducted an IRB-approved retrospective cohort study including all patients with BM with treated SRS. In addition, we retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records of all consecutive patients with BM. The study cohort included all patients with prior surgery or radiotherapy [WBRT or prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI)]. Data for his study were collected from December 2019 to March 2021.

In general, the institutional philosophy for salvage SRS versus WBRT was to postpone the use of WBRT for as long as possible and treat with salvage SRS when feasible. No further treatment was reserved for patients with poor life expectancy and who were not expected to benefit from salvage treatment.

We have two different platforms, robotic (Cyberknife M6) and linac-based (Varian EDGE), for SRS delivery. For planning purposes, high-resolution computed tomography (CT) slices with a 1·25 mm thickness were obtained and fused with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for tumour contouring. Planning target volume (PTV) was created by adding gross target volume (GTVs) 1 mm in each direction in intact tumours and clinical target volume (CTVs) in resection cavities. Treatment planning was performed using Precision (version 2.0.0.1, Accuray Inc.) and Eclipse (version 15.5, Varian Medical System) treatment planning system software. The prescription dose was normalised to the 70%–80% isodose line range to cover 95% of the PTV volume.

After undergoing SRS, patients underwent follow-up with clinical and radiographic surveillance per institutional standards. Patient and tumour-related factors, treatment details, time until first CNS progression after SRS, type of first central nervous system (CNS) progression (local, distant and leptomeningeal), cause of death and duration of follow-up data were recorded.

An experienced radiologist defined all local recurrences and radiation necrosis with a contrast-enhanced MRI and additional perfusion MRI in the neurooncological tumour board. DBM was defined as any new brain metastasis that developed outside the prior SRS treatment volume. MRI evidence of new nodular enhancement of the dura, diffuse leptomeningeal enhancement or positive cerebrospinal fluid cytology was considered a leptomeningeal failure. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from the completion of SRS to death.

In the descriptive statistics of the data, mean, standard deviation, median minimum, maximum, frequency and ratio values were used. The distribution of variables was measured with the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Independent sample t-test and Mann–Whitney u-test were used to analyse independent quantitative data. The chi-square test was used to analyse independent qualitative data, and the Fischer test was used when chi-square test conditions were not met. Cox regression (univariate–multivariate) was used for survival analysis. SPSS 27.0 (IBM SPSS Inc.) program was used in the analysis.

Results

From December 2016 to April 2020, 375 patients were treated with brain SRS. Two hundred twenty-seven patients were excluded because of missing data or less than 6 months of follow-up in surviving patients. The last follow-up was checked in March 2021. One hundred forty-eight consecutive patients, a total of 444 lesions, were analysed.

Patient, tumour and treatment characteristics are listed in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1. Patient and tumour characteristics

* More than three different supratentorial regions.

Table 2. Treatment characteristics

The median follow-up was 14·8 months (range 6–51), and the median age was 57 (26–85). The median Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) is 90 (50–90 range). Median 2 (1–16) lesions were treated. The medium maximum tumour diameter was 14·3 mm (1–65·3 mm). The prescription doses were 16–18 Gy in a single fraction, 24–27 Gy in three fractions and 30 Gy in five fractions depending on tumour size and the location. The median time between the initial prior RT (WBRT or PCI) and SRS was 7·7 months (1·8–34·1 months). The SRS is used as a salvage strategy in these patients.

Of the 148 analysed patients, 72·3% were alive, 41 were dead and 36 were alive without disease. One and three years OS survival rates are 80% and 60%, respectively (Figure 1a). Seventy-one patients were alive with disease progression. The presence of neurological deficit (OR 2·71,1·07–6·9, p = 0·036) and prior RT (WBRT and PCI) (OR 2·55, 1·28–5·09, 0·008) is associated with OS in multivariate analyses (Table 3).

Figure 1. Kaplan–Meier curve of overall survival (a) and distant brain metastasis-free survival (b).

Table 3. Univariate and multivariate competing risk regression analyses of overall survival

* More than three different supratentorial regions.

The local recurrence rate was 11·5 % per patient. The median time to local recurrence was 9·6 months (between 2·8 and 45·7). No significant prognostic factors were associated with LC.

The distant brain recurrence rate was 53·4 % (Figure 1b). The median DBM number was 2 (1–50). The median time to DBM is 6·1 months (between 0·3 and 31). In multivariate analysis, brainstem located lesions (OR 7·97, 1·02–62·28, p = 0·048) and age (OR 1·02, 1–1·05, p = 0·021) were independent parameters for DBM (Table 4). A total of 68 SRS treatments in 53 patients with a median of 1 (1–4 times) and 28 WBRT were applied as a salvage strategy after DBM.

Table 4. Univariate and multivariate competing risk regression analyses of distant brain metastasis

* More than three different supratentorial regions.

Leptomeningeal metastasis (LMD) was seen in 11 patients (7·4%). The median time to LMD was 14·8 months (between 1·5 and 27·4). No significant prognostic factors were associated with LMD.

Symptomatic radiation necrosis was seen in 19 patients (12·8 %). Median follow-up was longer in patients with BN than patients without BN. The duration of follow is 17·4 versus 13·4 months (p = 0·015). After SRS, the median time to BN development was 12·7 months (between 4·8 and 39·6). BN was more common in those without the extracranial disease (68·4 % versus 31·6%). If BN developed in patients with extracranial disease, it was more likely in patients with only bone metastases (83·3 % versus 40·3 %). The maximal tumour diameter was bigger in patients with BN 13 versus 23 mm (p = 0·034). Cavity radiosurgery is associated with more BN (p = 0·004). Seven out of 22 patients with prior surgery had BN.

Discussion

We present our brain metastasis SRS results in modern technology and systemic treatment area. The survival of metastatic patients has increased since recent imaging and systemic therapy improvements. So LC and side effects related to RT have become increasingly important. The ASTRO guidelines recommend using estimated prognosis and guide treatment decisions. Reference Tsao, Rades and Wirth1

Survival is a complex end point in patients with BM and is influenced by multiple factors. WBRT does not provide survival benefits compared to SRS. Reference Andrews, Scott and Sperduto5Reference Chang, Wefel and Hess7 In our study, previous whole-brain radiation is associated with decreased survival. These patients probably have more metastasis in initial brain metastasis diagnosis, and after WBRT, residual more radioresistance colones or decreased NCFs may lead to decreased survival.

Intracranial disease progression or WBRT itself can cause neurocognitive decline. In addition, declining NCF increases the caregiver burden and impairs financial, work and social activities. Reference Schulz and Sherwood8 There are no published randomised trials for SRS versus WBRT for patients with five or more BM. This study did not define any correlation between lesion number and treatment outcomes. Yamamoto et al. Reference Yamamoto, Serizawa and Shuto9,Reference Yamamoto, Kawabe and Sato10 documented non-inferior OS rates for patients with 5–10 BM treated with SRS compared to 2–4 lesions. There is no scientific rationale for selecting a certain number of tumours as the cut-off number. Cumulative tumour volume may be more critical in prognostication than lesion number. Reference Routman, Bian and Diao11,Reference Hatiboglu and Akdur12 Brain SRS versus hippocampus avoidance WBRT with memantine in multiple BM is now evaluating in a prospective study. 13

Distant brain recurrence is the main recurrence pattern after brain SRS, with a median 54% (range 35·5%–68%) similar to our study. Reference Redmond, De Salles and Fariselli14 Compared to WBRT, patients treated with SRS are more likely to require salvage therapy following the development of new BM, Reference Brown, Ballman and Cerhan15 but no differences in OS were found. Reference Churilla, Ballman and Brown16 We observed that SRS is a frequent salvage treatment strategy for managing intracranial relapses after SRS (SRS: 68 times in 53 patients versus WBRT: 28 patients). Close surveillance with MRI after SRS treatments is standard in our department for early detection and possible early salvage treatments of CNS relapses. However, no prospective trial analysed the impact of regular MRI follow-up.

Postoperative resection cavity radiosurgery is associated with symptomatic radiation necrosis. There are some uncertainties in defining postoperative treatment volume. Reference Soliman, Ruschin and Angelov17 Normal brain tissue exposes to more radiation with additional PTV margins than primary intact brain SRS treatments. Reference Prabhu, Patel and Press18 Fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy should be preferred for these lesions. Reference Minniti, Clarke and Lanzetta19,Reference Milano, Grimm and Niemierko20 Although we could not show it in this study, cavity SRS is associated with increased LMD rates in the literature. Reference Atalar, Choi and Harsh21Reference Prabhu, Turner and Asher23 Preoperative SRS can be a good treatment option for BM requiring surgical resection with lower BN and LMD rates. Reference Prabhu, Patel and Press18,Reference Patel, Burri and Asher24

Melanoma, sarcoma and renal cell carcinoma BM have traditionally been considered radioresistant. Reference Khan, Arooj and Li25 However, our analyses found no difference between LC rates comparing different histologies. This radioresistance probably exists in conventional radiotherapy settings, and high doses of radiation with SRS overcome this issue with some radiobiological advantages. Reference Sayan, Zoto Mustafayev and Sahin26 Nevertheless, there is a steep dose response in patients with small melanoma metastases, and dose escalation may benefit LC. Reference Redmond, Gui and Benedict27

Eloquent areas in the central nervous system have a potential higher toxicity risk than other brain regions. Reference Milano, Grimm and Niemierko20 We decreased the dose in the cerebellum, brainstem and eloquent areas by one gray per fraction and used multi-fractionated SRS. With this strategy, similar LC can be achieved compared to the other brain subregions without elevated symptomatic BN rates.

In our series, BN rate increased with longer follow-up and was more common in patients with extra- and intracranially controlled disease or only with bone metastases. As these patients live longer than with uncontrolled disease, the likelihood of side effects associated with oncological treatments may increase. In today’s oncology era, where longer survivals can be achieved with better treatments, the importance of treatment-related toxicities such as BN is increasing, and stricter rules should be followed to prevent them.

The present study has inherent limitations based on its retrospective nature, and the results may be somewhat influenced by clinical selection bias. Nevertheless, standardisation in treatment benefited from the fact that all imaging and treatment were done at a single institution.

Conclusion

SRS is an effective local treatment with a high LC rate in brain metastasis. Furthermore, distant brain recurrence is the main recurrence pattern after brain SRS and is generally salvageable with repeated brain SRS. Due to the increased risk of BN, routine metastasectomy should be made with caution.

Financial Support

None.

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

Tsao, MN, Rades, D, Wirth, A et al. Radiotherapeutic and surgical management for newly diagnosed brain metastasis(es): an American society for radiation oncology evidence-based guideline. Pract Radiat Oncol 2012; 2(3):210225. doi: 10.1016/j.prro.2011.12.004 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDuff, SG, Taich, ZJ, Lawson, JD et al. Neurocognitive assessment following whole brain radiation therapy and radiosurgery for patients with cerebral metastases: table 1. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2013; 84(12): 13841391. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2013-305166 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linskey, ME, Andrews, DW, Asher, AL et al. The role of stereotactic radiosurgery in the management of patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline. J Neuro-Oncol 2009; 96(1): 4568. doi: 10.1007/s11060-009-0073-4 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Comprehensive Cancer Network – Home. NCCN. http://nccn.org/. Accessed on 29th May 2022.Google Scholar
Andrews, DW, Scott, CB, Sperduto, PW et al. Whole brain radiation therapy with or without stereotactic radiosurgery boost for patients with one to three brain metastases: phase III results of the RTOG 9508 randomised trial. Lancet 2004; 363(9422): 16651672. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(04)16250-8 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aoyama, H, Shirato, H, Tago, M et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery plus whole-brain radiation therapy vs stereotactic radiosurgery alone for treatment of brain metastases. J Am Med Assoc 2006; 295(21): 2483. doi: 10.1001/jama.295.21.2483 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chang, EL, Wefel, JS, Hess, KR et al. Neurocognition in patients with brain metastases treated with radiosurgery or radiosurgery plus whole-brain irradiation: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2009; 10(11): 10371044. doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(09)70263-3 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schulz, R, Sherwood, PR Physical and mental health effects of family caregiving. J Social Work Educ 2008; 44(sup3): 105113. doi: 10.5175/jswe.2008.773247702 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamamoto, M, Serizawa, T, Shuto, T et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery for patients with multiple brain metastases (JLGK0901): a multi-institutional prospective observational study. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15(4): 387395. doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(14)70061-0 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yamamoto, M, Kawabe, T, Sato, Y et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery for patients with multiple brain metastases: a case-matched study comparing treatment results for patients with 2–9 versus 10 or more tumors. J Neurosurg 2014; 121(Suppl_2): 1625. doi: 10.3171/2014.8.gks141421 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Routman, DM, Bian, SX, Diao, K et al. The growing importance of lesion volume as a prognostic factor in patients with multiple brain metastases treated with stereotactic radiosurgery. Cancer Med 2018; 7(3): 757764. doi: 10.1002/cam4.1352 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hatiboglu, MA, Akdur, K Evaluating critical brain radiation doses in the treatment of multiple brain lesions with gamma knife radiosurgery. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 2017; 95(4): 268278. doi: 10.1159/000478272 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stereotactic radiosurgery compared with hippocampal-avoidant whole brain radiotherapy (ha-WBRT) plus memantine for 5 or more brain metastases – full text view. Full Text View – ClinicalTrials.gov. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03550391. Accessed 29th May 2022.Google Scholar
Redmond, KJ, De Salles, AAF, Fariselli, L et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery for postoperative metastatic surgical cavities: a critical review and International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society (ISRS) practice guidelines. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021; 111(1): 6880. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.04.016 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, PD, Ballman, KV, Cerhan, JH et al. Postoperative stereotactic radiosurgery compared with whole brain radiotherapy for resected metastatic brain disease (NCCTG N107C/CEC·3): a Multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2017; 18(8): 10491060. doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(17)30441-2 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Churilla, TM, Ballman, KV, Brown, PD et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery with or without whole-brain radiation therapy for limited brain metastases: a secondary analysis of the North Central Cancer Treatment Group N0574 (alliance) randomized controlled trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2017; 99(5): 11731178. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.07.045 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soliman, H, Ruschin, M, Angelov, L et al. Consensus contouring guidelines for postoperative completely resected cavity stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018; 100(2): 436442. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.09.047 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prabhu, RS, Patel, KR, Press, RH et al. Preoperative vs postoperative radiosurgery for resected brain metastases: a review. Neurosurgery 2018; 84(1): 1929. doi: 10.1093/neuros/nyy146 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minniti, G, Clarke, E, Lanzetta, G et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases: analysis of outcome and risk of Brain Radionecrosis. Radiat Oncol 2011; 6(1). doi: 10.1186/1748-717x-6-48 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milano, MT, Grimm, J, Niemierko, A et al. Single- and multifraction stereotactic radiosurgery dose/volume tolerances of the brain. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021; 110(1): 6886. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.08.013 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Atalar, B, Choi, CYH, Harsh, GR et al. Cavity volume dynamics after resection of brain metastases and timing of postresection cavity stereotactic radiosurgery. Neurosurgery 2013; 72(2): 180185. doi: 10.1227/neu.0b013e31827b99f3 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, MD, Avkshtol, V, Baschnagel, AM et al. Surgical resection of brain metastases and the risk of leptomeningeal recurrence in patients treated with stereotactic radiosurgery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016; 94(3): 537543. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.11.022 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prabhu, RS, Turner, BE, Asher, AL et al. Leptomeningeal disease and neurologic death after surgical resection and radiosurgery for brain metastases: a multi-institutional analysis. Adv Radiat Oncol 2021; 6(2): 100644. doi: 10.1016/j.adro.2021.100644 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patel, KR, Burri, SH, Asher, AL et al. Comparing preoperative with postoperative stereotactic radiosurgery for resectable brain metastases. Neurosurgery 2016; 79(2): 279285. doi: 10.1227/neu.0000000000001096 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khan, M, Arooj, S, Li, R et al. Tumor primary site and histology subtypes role in radiotherapeutic management of brain metastases. Front Oncol 2020; 10. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.00781 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sayan, M, Zoto Mustafayev, T, Sahin, B et al. Evaluation of response to stereotactic radiosurgery in patients with radioresistant brain metastases. Radiat Oncol J 2019; 37(4): 265270. doi: 10.3857/roj.2019.00409 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Redmond, KJ, Gui, C, Benedict, S et al. Tumor control probability of radiosurgery and fractionated stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021; 110(1): 5367. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.10.034 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1. Patient and tumour characteristics

Figure 1

Table 2. Treatment characteristics

Figure 2

Figure 1. Kaplan–Meier curve of overall survival (a) and distant brain metastasis-free survival (b).

Figure 3

Table 3. Univariate and multivariate competing risk regression analyses of overall survival

Figure 4

Table 4. Univariate and multivariate competing risk regression analyses of distant brain metastasis