We compare the accuracy of the off-axis Winston–Lutz (WL) test in two versions of ExacTracTM: version 6.0 (ETv6) and Dynamic (ETD) in the same linac (TrueBeam STx®).

An upgraded of the ExacTracTM system was done in our institution. It was designed as an off-axis WL test before the update for comparison purposes. A head 3D-printed phantom based on a patient’s computed tomography images was used. Nine metallic fiducials were inserted and distributed on the phantom. Each target (fiducial) was designed an off-axis WL test with eight different gantry/collimator/table combinations. The phantom was placed using two different ETv6 and ETD in the same linac, and cone-beam computed tomography and electronic portal imaging device (EPID) images were acquired. The 2D deviation between the centre of the fiducial and the radiation field was found and compared with the original digital reconstructed radiography (DRR) by the profiles.

The phantom allows the definition of a procedure to determine off-axis deviations in radiosurgery treatments. The displacements calculated from the WL test showed acceptable values for both versions taking into account 3D displacement tolerances of 1 mm. These values were reached with rigorous quality assurance (QA) linac tests performed routinely that include mechanical, MV/kV and image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) tests. However, ETD indicated more accurate values for all the targets no matter the distance to the isocentre (3D displacements < 0·5 mm).

In terms of the IGRT correction without set-up displacements, ETD is up to twice as accurate as the ETv6, showing 3D displacements up to 0·5 mm in all targets.

Brain metastases (BM) are common in patients with HER2-positive and triple-negative breast cancer. In this study we aim to report clinical outcomes with LINAC-based stereotactic radiosurgery/radiotherapy (SRS/SRT) for BM in patients of breast cancer.

Clinical and dosimetric records of breast cancer patients treated for BM at our institute between May, 2015 and December, 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients of previously treated or newly diagnosed breast cancer with at least a radiological diagnosis of BM; 1–4 in number, ≤3·5 cm in maximum dimension, with a Karnofsky Performance Score of ≥60 were taken up for treatment with SRS. SRT was generally considered if a tumour was >3·5 cm in diameter, near a critical or eloquent structure, or if the proximity of moderately sized tumours would lead to dose bridging in a single-fraction SRS plan. The median prescribed SRS dose was 15 Gy (range 7–24 Gy) and SRT dose was 27 Gy in 3 fractions.

Clinical assessment and MR imaging was done at 6 weeks post-SRS and then every 3 months thereafter. Intracranial progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated using Kaplan–Meier method and subgroups were compared using log rank test.

Total, 40 tumours were treated in 31 patients. The median tumour diameter was 2·3 cm (range 1·0–4·6 cm). SRS and SRT were delivered in 27 and 4 patients, respectively. SRS/SRT was given as a boost to whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) in four patients and as salvage for progression after WBRT in six patients. In general, nine patients underwent prior surgery. The median follow-up was 7·9 months (0·2–34 months). Twenty (64·5%) patients developed local recurrence, 10 (32·3%) patients developed distant intracranial relapse and 7 patients had both local and distant intracranial relapse. The estimated local control at 6 months and 1 year was 48 and 35%, respectively. Median intracranial progression free survival (PFS) was 3·73 months (range 0·2–25 months). Median intracranial PFS was 3·02 months in patients who received SRS alone or as boost after WBRT, while it was 4·27 months in those who received SRS as salvage after WBRT (p = 0·793). No difference in intracranial PFS was observed with or without prior surgery (p = 0·410). Median overall survival (OS) was 21·7 months (range 0·2–34 months) for the entire cohort. Patients who received prior WBRT had a poor OS (13·31 months) as compared to SRS alone (21·4 months; p = 0·699).

In patients with BM after breast cancer SRS alone, WBRT + SRS and surgery + SRS had comparable PFS and OS.

Patients with pregnancy-associated secondary brain tumors (PASBT) are challenging to manage. Because no guidelines for the management of such patients currently exist, we performed a systematic review of the literature using PRISMA guidelines with a discussion of management from a neurosurgeon’s perspective.

Systematic review of the literature using PRISMA guidelines from 1999 to 2018.

We identified 301 studies of which 16 publications (22 patients reporting 25 pregnancies, 20 deliveries, 5 early terminations) were suitable for final analysis. The most frequent primary cancers were breast (8/22, 36.36%), skin (6/22, 27.27%), and lung (5/22, 22.73%). Four patients (18.18%) had neurosurgical procedures during their pregnancies. Five patients (22.73%) received neurosurgical resection after their pregnancies. Nine patients (40.91%) received radiation therapy and seven patients (31.82%) received chemotherapy during pregnancy while seven patients (31.82%) received chemotherapy and radiation after pregnancy. There was 1 fetal death (5%) out of 20 healthy deliveries. Five pregnancies (20%) were terminated in the first trimester due to a need for urgent neurosurgical intervention.

Management of PASBT remains a challenging issue. Maternal and fetal risks associated with surgical resection and teratogenicity due to adjuvant therapy should be discussed in the context of a multidisciplinary team. Timing of surgery and the use of systemic chemoradiation depends on the gestational age (GA) of the fetus, extent, and control of the mother’s primary and metastatic disease. Guidelines need to be established to help neuro-oncology teams safely and effectively manage this group of patients.

Metastatic brain disease is still a major contributor to cancer treatment failure. Various treatments have improved in the recent decades, which allow for better control of brain metastatic lesions. Various prognostic scoring tools have been developed and used worldwide to stratify patients with brain metastases to determine who will benefit most from aggressive treatment. The three most commonly used prognostic scoring tools are recursive partitioning analysis (RPA), basic score for brain metastases (BSBM) and graded prognostic assessment (GPA). The aim of this study is to validate these scoring tools using an Indonesian cancer patient population.

A retrospective analysis of all patients presenting with brain metastases from January 2012 until December 2014, through using hospital medical records, was conducted. All patients receiving whole brain radiotherapy during this period were included in this study. A follow-up with a telephone call was carried out to determine the patient’s health and survival status. Uncontactable patients were excluded from the analysis. Survival analysis was carried out by stratifying patients based on the three prognostic scoring systems.

A total of 80 patients were eligible to be included in the study, with 18 excluded due to being uncontactable. The remaining 62 patients’ data were analysed and stratified with all three scoring systems. The RPA was found to confer better stratification than BSBM and GPA in our study population.

GPA was non-prognostic in our study population and BSBM was less prognostic, especially in the middle group, class 1 and class 2. Those BSBM class 1 and class 2 did not provide good prognostic stratification in our study population, whereas RPA was proven to be the best in stratifying patients’ prognosis with brain metastases in our study population.

We sought to retrospectively report our outcomes using post-operative stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS)/stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) in place of whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) following resection of brain metastases from our hospital-based community practice.

A retrospective review of 23 patients who underwent post-operative SRS at our single institution from 2013 to 2017 was undertaken. Patient records, treatment plans and diagnostic images were reviewed. Local failure, distant intracranial failure and overall survival were studied. Categorical variables were analyzed using Fisher’s exact tests. Continuous variables were analyzed using Mann–Whitney tests. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to estimate survival times.

16 (70%) were single-fraction SRS, whereas the remaining 7 patients received a five-fraction treatment course. The median single-fraction dose was 16 Gy (range, 16–18). The median total dose for fractionated treatments was 25 Gy (range, 25–35). Overall survival at 6 and 12 months was 95 and 67%, respectively. Comparison of SRS versus SRT local control rates at 6 and 12 months revealed control rates of 92 and 78% versus 29 and 14%, respectively. Every patient with dural/pial involvement at the time of surgery had distant intracranial failure at the 12-month follow-up.

Single-fraction frameless SRS proved to be an effective modality with excellent local control rates. However, the five-fraction SRT course was associated with an increased rate of local recurrence. Dural/pial involvement may portend a high risk for distant intracranial disease; therefore, it may be prudent to consider alternative approaches in these cases.

Brain metastases from cervical carcinoma are rare. Accompanying symptoms depend on the location of the metastatic lesions. Penduncular hallucinosis is a vivid form of hallucination with clinical findings indicating a lesion of the upper midbrain. We hereby report a probable first case of peduncular hallucinosis associated with brain metastases from cervical cancer.

A 42-year-old woman had been diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of cervix. On admission for her increasing pelvic pain, she had complex visual hallucinations comprising cartoon children, figurative people and a foggy room. Magnetic resonance imaging of the head revealed a lesion in the left mesencephalothalamic area.

Peduncular hallucinosis is well known for its vivid and life-like characteristics associated with a mesencephalic area lesion, and recognition of this may be useful of its diagnosis and differential diagnosis from confusion and other hallucinations.