Preoperative versus postoperative stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
S Farzad Maroufi, Mohammad Sadegh Fallahi, S Parmis Maroufi, Vida Kassaeyan, Paolo Palmisciano, Jason P Sheehan
{"title":"Preoperative versus postoperative stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.","authors":"S Farzad Maroufi, Mohammad Sadegh Fallahi, S Parmis Maroufi, Vida Kassaeyan, Paolo Palmisciano, Jason P Sheehan","doi":"10.1007/s10143-024-03166-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Resection is often the primary treatment for large brain tumors but is less practical for multiple brain metastases (BM). Current guidelines recommend stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for untreated BMs or following the surgical removal of a solitary BM to reduce the risk of local tumor recurrence. Preoperative SRS (pre-SRS) shows promise with fewer complications and more precise targeting, but it lacks tissue diagnosis and may hinder wound healing. This study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of pre-SRS and postoperative SRS (post-SRS) for BM treatment. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. Studies were selected based on PICO criteria, including patients with metastatic intracranial lesions undergoing preoperative or postoperative radiosurgery. Data related to outcomes and complications were extracted. Meta-analysis was performed, employing the fixed effect model due to study design similarities and limited patient numbers. Four studies encompassing 616 BM patients (221 preoperative, 405 postoperative) were included. Patient characteristics, including age, gender, cancer source, and lesion location, were similar between groups. Radiosurgery modalities included LINAC and Gamma Knife, with hypofractionated treatments more common postoperatively. Outcomes showed comparable overall survival (p = 0.07), local failure (p = 0.26), and distant failure rates (p = 0.84) between groups. The preoperative group had lower risks of radiation necrosis (p = 0.02) and leptomeningeal disease (p = 0.03) in 1-year follow-up, with significantly better composite outcomes (p = 0.04). No significant difference in wound issues was observed (p = 0.98). This review reveals pre- and post-SRS for BM have similar outcomes for LF, DF, and OS. Pre-SRS potentially lowers RN and LMD risks, with better tumor targeting and less radiation to healthy tissue, while post-SRS targets residual disease but with higher complication risks. Future research should optimize SRS protocols.</p>","PeriodicalId":19184,"journal":{"name":"Neurosurgical Review","volume":"48 1","pages":"16"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurosurgical Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-024-03166-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Resection is often the primary treatment for large brain tumors but is less practical for multiple brain metastases (BM). Current guidelines recommend stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for untreated BMs or following the surgical removal of a solitary BM to reduce the risk of local tumor recurrence. Preoperative SRS (pre-SRS) shows promise with fewer complications and more precise targeting, but it lacks tissue diagnosis and may hinder wound healing. This study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of pre-SRS and postoperative SRS (post-SRS) for BM treatment. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. Studies were selected based on PICO criteria, including patients with metastatic intracranial lesions undergoing preoperative or postoperative radiosurgery. Data related to outcomes and complications were extracted. Meta-analysis was performed, employing the fixed effect model due to study design similarities and limited patient numbers. Four studies encompassing 616 BM patients (221 preoperative, 405 postoperative) were included. Patient characteristics, including age, gender, cancer source, and lesion location, were similar between groups. Radiosurgery modalities included LINAC and Gamma Knife, with hypofractionated treatments more common postoperatively. Outcomes showed comparable overall survival (p = 0.07), local failure (p = 0.26), and distant failure rates (p = 0.84) between groups. The preoperative group had lower risks of radiation necrosis (p = 0.02) and leptomeningeal disease (p = 0.03) in 1-year follow-up, with significantly better composite outcomes (p = 0.04). No significant difference in wound issues was observed (p = 0.98). This review reveals pre- and post-SRS for BM have similar outcomes for LF, DF, and OS. Pre-SRS potentially lowers RN and LMD risks, with better tumor targeting and less radiation to healthy tissue, while post-SRS targets residual disease but with higher complication risks. Future research should optimize SRS protocols.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neurosurgical Review
Neurosurgical Review 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
7.10%
发文量
191
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The goal of Neurosurgical Review is to provide a forum for comprehensive reviews on current issues in neurosurgery. Each issue contains up to three reviews, reflecting all important aspects of one topic (a disease or a surgical approach). Comments by a panel of experts within the same issue complete the topic. By providing comprehensive coverage of one topic per issue, Neurosurgical Review combines the topicality of professional journals with the indepth treatment of a monograph. Original papers of high quality are also welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信